Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Pedestrian Crossings

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if the guidance he gives to local authorities about the criteria for providing pedestrian crossings includes specific provisions reflecting the requirements of disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Yes, Sir. Special advice is given on when to provide pedestrian facilities and the use of pelican crossings is recommended in preference to zebra crossings. We also require the use of audible signals with pelican and signal crossings to help the blind, where appropriate.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. As a principle, will her Department additionally require dropped kerbs at all pedestrian crossings to aid the disabled and ensure that they have time to cross when it is appropriate to do so? Will she push the GLC into action in my constituency by encouraging it to provide a crossing that is suitable for the disabled at Cowgate road? The GLC has for 12 months frustrated my efforts to get a crossing there for the disabled.

Mrs. Chalker: Although we welcome the use of dropped kerbs, they are sometimes distracting for the blind if they are used unexpectedly. Therefore, we feel it best to consider using dropped kerbs when they are in combination with some form of textured pavement surface. I note my hon. Friend's comment about the GLC. I am not in the least surprised, but I doubt whether it will take any advice from me.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister make sure that when ramping is used it is not such as to allow the disabled person's wheelchair to enter the no-go area while it is not allowed to be in it, but makes it easier to cross the road when it is safe to do so?

Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Some dropped kerbs have a slight ridge before meeting the roadway. The use of this new type of dropped kerb seems to provide an added safeguard for those who are chairbound.

Sir David Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proper ramping of pedestrian crossings is essential for

those in wheelchairs and for semi-invalids? Does she recognise that incompetent ramping by local authorities can be lethal to those whom they are endeavouring to help?

Mrs. Chalker: I recognise that incompetent ramping is extremely dangerous. We give guidance to local authorities, but if my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member comes across ramping that is plainly dangerous, I hope that he or she will take up the matter with the local highway authority.

Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the guidelines allow for extra time to be given at crossings in the vicinity of hospitals? Does she agree that there is a case to be made for extra time to be provided at crossings in the vicinity of old people's homes, nursing homes and even post offices, where many elderly people have to go every week to collect their pensions?

Mrs. Chalker: I understand my hon. Friend's point about increased time. I believe that a small increase in the "steady green man" time would be desirable to compensate for the crossing time that is lost by the pedestrian's delay in reacting to the appearance of the crossing signal. A small increase would help the disabled. I am considering that and whether to delay the start of the flashing amber light that is shown to drivers, which would help those whom my hon. Friend has in mind to negotiate the crossings safely.

Cycling Policy

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will convene a conference of interested local authorities to discuss the Government's cycling policies; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: Conferences dealing with cycling matters already take place as necessary. These provide one opportunity among many for continual exchange of views between the Department, local authorities and other interested bodies. I am asking the Department to convene a conference early next year to review progress.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister accept that the success of the Government's cycling policies depends to a large extent on the initiatives taken by local authorities? In view of the explosion in cycling—I am glad that the Minister is an enthusiast—at a time when the Government are slashing local authorities expenditure, what is she doing to ensure that cycling obtains the resources that it deserves?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are working hard to ensure that we introduce cycling schemes where we can—that is, where they are economical and make sense in the locality. He is right in saying that the matter should be decided by the locality. The schemes should be in the interests of safer cycling, which we have been promoting especially hard in the new code during the last few weeks.

Mr. Higgins: Has my hon. Friend had a conference with the Home Office about the need to enforce the law on the lighting of bicycles and about the fact that a high percentage of bicycles show no lights?

Mrs. Chalker: I am as worried as my right hon. Friend about that. I shall discuss enforcement in general with the Home Office in a few days' time. One of our prime


campaigns, which we must continue for as long as is necessary, is to make it clear in something like our new safety code for cyclists that cyclists are a danger to themselves and to other road users by cycling without lights.

Railways (Electrification)

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with present progress on railway electrification.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I am glad to report the progress British Rail has made. It has electrified 245 track miles since May 1979. A further 430 track miles are now being electrified or have been approved.

Dr. Marek: Does the Minister accept that the profitability objective that he has set is now unlikely to be reached within the arbitrary time scale that he laid down? In the light of that, will he set that condition aside and consider the electrification of the east coast main line on its merits, which are, that it would make an independent contribution to British Rail inter-city services and an undisputed 11 per cent. return on investment?

Mr. Mitchell: The financial objectives of British Rail, for which the Secretary of State asked, are simply those which British Rail proposed for 1988 brought forward to 1986. We have already said that we would give east coast main line electrification urgent consideration when we received the inter-city strategy, which we expect to receive shortly.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend make a clear statement that it is the Government's policy to provide the most efficient and effective railway system as an essential component of a modern, industrial country? Will he therefore consider transport policy like defence policy, and, if good defence or transport are needed, provide the best possible and most modern facilities?

Mr. Mitchell: British Rail is already determined to provide the sort of service to which my hon. Friend referred. It has planned a major increase in investment for the next few years, and my hon. Friend will be pleased with the progress that is being made.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister said that he expected the electrification of the east coast line shortly. What does he mean by "shortly"? Has he a time scale for its implementation?

Mr. Mitchell: I did not say that I expected east coast main line electrification shortly, but that I expected the inter-city strategy shortly. When I have received that, we shall be able to take a decision on both east coast main line electrification and its timing.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend reconsider pressing British Rail to help finance a study into north Wales electrification in view of the electrification of the Norwich line and the line between Hastings and Tonbridge, both of which will produce a similar rate of return to north Wales electrification, but far fewer potential customers?

Mr. Mitchell: It is for the management of British Rail to propose electrification where it believes that that is the right thing to do. I have received no such application.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that the 11 per cent. discounted rate of return on the east coast main line investment is 4 per cent. higher than on the investment for comparable road building and 2 per cent. higher than on comparable rail investment in France? If we show by our actions that we have no confidence in our manufacturers in this area, how can we convince foreign buyers to buy British electrified equipment?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is presupposing a result from our examination of proposals for east coast main line electrification. We have not yet carried out that examination.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Loyden: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of his analysis of the responses he has received to Cmnd. 9063 and accompanying consultation papers.

Mr. Cowans: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to publish a detailed analysis of the responses he has received to Cmnd. 9063.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): In the period up to 21 March, 393 responses to my Department's consultation papers were received and they have all been carefully considered.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made available two reports on the responses to the White Paper and associated consultation documents. These include summaries of views on the reallocation of transport responsibilities.

Mr. Loyden: In view of the responses received to Cmnd. 9063 and the policy of reallocation of responsibilities, have the Government changed their view on this matter, or has the consultative period simply been an academic exercise?

Mr. Ridley: Some responses were in favour of the Government's proposals, some were against, but many were addressed to particular parts of the proposals. All of those recommendations have been taken into account.

Mr. Cowans: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been much anxiety about the delay in publishing the analysis? Although the Minister said that 393 responses had been received, is it not extremely odd that only 110 were published in his latest document, which has been placed in the Library? Will he give a categorical assurance that all responses will be published when he publishes his analysis of what has been said, because that is the only way in which hon. Members can ensure that the analysis is correct?

Mr. Ridley: It is for those whose submit their views to decide whether they should be published. If I were to publish every communication that I received from Opposition Members I am sure that they would censure me, because that would give away many things which they would rather not give away.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: When does my right hon. Friend expect to reach conclusions from his review of bus licensing?

Mr. Ridley: Fairly soon. I hope that it will be possible to publish a White Paper before too long.

Mr. Waller: Is it not irresponsible for the metropolitan county councils, especially West Yorkshire council, to try to give the impression in advertisements that simply because the administration of public transport in the metropolitan counties will be changed, support will be withdrawn and many services will be cut?

Mr. Ridley: I am afraid that we shall be subjected to groundless scaremongering similar to that indulged in by the GLC about London Transport. It would be better to await the detailed proposals, which will come forward in due course.

Mr. Terlezki: Will my right hon. Friend accept our congratulations on the steps that he has taken to open competition in European aviation? Does he agree that the new £49 return fare being offered by British Airways and KLM from London to Amsterdam shows—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to relate this to the main question.

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wareing.

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not a transport expert, but I could not relate the hon. Gentleman's question to the main question. Perhaps the Minister can.

Mr. Ridley: I believe that I can relate it, Mr. Speaker. What my hon. Friend says about the benefits which competition in transport services can bring in terms of falling costs and fares is applicable to how the metropolitan counties can manage their affairs when they cease to be in a position to waste money unnecessarily.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State agree that the overwhelming majority of responses to his White Paper, whether in general or in particular, opposed the Government's policy for rearranging the management of passenger transport, highways and traffic management? In the light of those responses, are the Government prepared to offer a fresh consultation paper?

Mr. Ridley: No. I am convinced that there is a great deal of duplication between the present metropolitan counties and the districts and that there will be considerable benefits to transports by bringing counties to an end. As I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), while some of the responses were wholly in favour of the proposals, and some were wholly opposed to them, they were, in the main, directed to specific parts of the proposals and cannot be put into one category.

Mr. Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that the proposals in Cmnd. 9063 are, in the opinion of many of us, ill-conceived and ill-thought out. Judging by the votes of some of his right hon. and hon. Friends during the recent past, they are also extremely unpopular as well as undemocratic. Which Conservative party shall we listen to on transport?

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the general election of June 1983 there was overwhelming support for the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC? Who is he to question the views of the electorate?

Severn Bridge

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make public the terms of reference to be issued to the commissioner conducting the public inquiry into the proposed increase in toll charges on the Severn bridge.

Mrs. Chalker: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to him on 20 February last, saying that there will be no formal terms of reference. The question before the inspector will be whether to recommend that the draft order in which the proposed tolls increase was published should be made.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the strategic importance of the Severn bridge as part of the motorway network and the need for the removal of an impediment to the free flow of freight and other traffic to and from Wales, will the Minister ensure that every consideration is given to views calling for the ending of tolls, let alone their increase?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is for the inspector to determine what evidence is relevant to the proposal before him, which is to increase toll charges. I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the inquiry is about a particular proposal, and anything that is considered there is decided by the inspector and not by Ministers.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that the proposed increase in tolls will be seen in Wales as an additional deterrent to industrial location in the Principality, adding to the other deterrents which the Government have raised, such as the reduction in the regional development grants. Will that be considered by the inspector?

Mrs. Chalker: As I said to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), it is for the inspector to determine what evidence is relevant to the proposal. It is for the inspector to decide whether to take into account those matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but plainly any road that is some distance from the ports of entry has a bigger problem than somewhere nearer those ports. It is for the inspector to decide.

Concessionary Fares

Mr. Snape: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the metropolitan county councils operate countywide schemes for concessionary fares for pensioners and disabled people.

Mrs. Chalker: All of them.

Mr. Snape: In view of the Secretary of State's somewhat belated announcement during the Report stage of the London Regional Transport Bill guaranteeing free off-peak travel for the old and disabled in the London area, may we expect a similar announcement in respect of the metropolitan counties? Does he accept that that announcement, when it comes, albeit belated as was his previous one, will be welcomed by the Opposition?

Mrs. Chalker: If the hon. Gentleman looks up his records he will find that the announcement was made, not at the Report stage of the Bill, but on 15 February last. All that did was to follow what was stated in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts straight, because the new joint passenger authorities will inherit the full


powers of the metropolitan county councils in relation to concessionary fares. They do not, therefore, need the guarantee, which would not have been needed in London but for the members of the Association of London Authorities, who refused to co-operate with the London Boroughs Association in determining the scheme.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As the joint boards will take over the full responsibilities previously held by the county councils, is it not absolutely right that they should also have discretion regarding concessionary fares?

Mrs. Chalker: Absolutely right.

Mr. Cowans: Will the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that, whatever management structure is set up after the abolition, the present concessionary schemes, particularly the scheme in Tyne and Wear, where there are free concessionary fares, will not be worsened, but will be maintained?

Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is entirely up to the passenger transport authorities, which will have that responsibility following abolition of the metropolitan authorities. I believe that these matters are rightly decided by the district councils concerned. I am sure that they will take careful note of all that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends say.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Although money is undoubtedly better spent on increasing non-means-tested cash benefits, is my hon. Friend aware that many old people complain that the system is patchy across the country? Is there not a case for convening a conference of transport operators to see whether some kind of uniform national scheme could be operated?

Mrs. Chalker: The Labour Government turned down that idea, which appeared in their Green paper of 1979. I believe that there is such variation in different parts of the country that the local authorities are in a far better position to know what their elderly and disabled people need and thus to decide what should be provided.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister agree that when people in London are guaranteed a continuation of their free bus service it is wrong that people in the metropolitan counties and elsewhere have no such undertaking from the Government?

Mrs. Chalker: First, it is not a free bus service, but a concessionary fares scheme paid for out of the rates and taxes. Secondly, people in London have been guaranteed the safeguarding of a basic scheme, but it will still be up to the boroughs to pay for the scheme provided by London Regional Transport. In other parts of the country local authorities will be making their own provision for the services which they believe it is right for their people to have.

Transport Services (Competition)

Mr. Tracey: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is now taking to increase competition in the provision of transport.

Mr. Ridley: We have already achieved increased competition in domestic coach and air services and we are now making progress towards liberalising air services and road haulage in the European Community. The London Regional Transport Bill allows for increased competition

in the provision of public transport in London and I am now reviewing how best to relax bus licensing to achieve a wider variety of services in the rest of the country.

Mr. Tracey: I am grateful for that answer, but knowing my right hon. Friend to be a man of radical turn of mind I wonder whether he is satisfied with the progress being made. In particular, does he feel that the London Regional Transport Bill allows for adequate privatisation provision for independent transport in London, and is he satisfied with the independent provision of transport on the airline routes?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On the first point, I believe that the London Regional Transport Bill enables the notions of competition and private enterprise to enter London's transport at the best speed possible. We are also proceeding, not recklessly, but step by step, to increase competition on domestic airlines, and I think that the benefits of that have been noted in all parts of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: What competition is there for the Carlisle-Settle line? What is its value as a diversionary line involving Scottish trains? Knowing of the Secretary of State's radical turn of mind and of his architectural interests, may I suggest that there is a case for part of the costs of reconstruction of the Ribblehead and other viaducts being borne out of heritage funds and not necessarily out of British Rail funds?

Mr. Ridley: I never thought to be berated for radicialism by the Conservative hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I am grateful to him for recognising the change-about in our roles.
I can make no statement about the future of the Settle-Carlisle line, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State travelled on that line last week and his full understanding of all the factors will no doubt be invaluable to me when the time comes to make up my mind.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware—he will not be aware, but I am about to tell him—that I have just got off a train which arrived at Euston a quarter of an hour late, on which there was standing room only in both second and first-class, and on which the quality of the buffet facilities was lamentable? Is he further aware that when I write to the chairman of British Rail on behalf of my constituents and myself I get fobbed off with apologies and promises to try to do better? When will he bring greater competition into the railways?

Mr. Ridley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting here from his late train in time to ask that supplementary question. I confirm that there is competition from the north-west—he can travel by car, coach or air if he prefers—but I do not think that even he would suggest that it is possible to have competition between trains. I urge him to write again to the chairman of the British Railways Board, because I think that my hon. Friend will find that the chairman is extremely receptive to any ways in which he can improve the service.

Mr. Snape: When extolling the virtues of such competition from the Preston area, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, had his hon. Friend travelled down the M1 and M6 motorways, he might not have made


Question Time at all, thereby depriving the House of the superlative answer that the Secretary of State has just given?

Mr. Ridley: Equally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will admit that there are risks in travelling to Fenchurch street station.

Port of London Authority

Mr. Brinton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the inspector's report on the inquiry into the port rates charged by the Port of London Authority; and when he expects to be able to make a decision on the inspector's recommendations.

Mr. David Mitchell: We expect to receive the report very shortly. We will announce our decision as soon as possible, but I cannot yet say when this will be.

Mr. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. When making his decision on this report, will he consider separating the conservancy activities of the PLA from the purely commercial activities, such as the Tilbury area? Does he accept that these commercial activities have, in effect, made the PLA bankrupt?

Mr. Mitchell: When we have received and considered the report and are in a position to reply to the PLA about its own finances, I shall have in mind the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Loyden: Will the Minister bear in mind that heavy conservancy costs in some ports make them less competitive than other ports whose conservancy costs are lighter? Would it not be right and proper for the Government to intervene to ensure equalisation of port conservancy costs by financially supporting authorities faced with high conservancy costs?

Mr. Mitchell: That concept has never been espoused by any Government. It would, I think, be counterproductive to ensuring effective competition between our ports in attracting cargo.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will my hon. Friend try to establish the extent to which port rates in London are a genuine charge for conservancy costs and to what extent they subsidise the PLA's loss-making operations? To the extent that they are the latter, does my hon. Friend agree that they are entirely unjustified and ought to be abolished?

Mr. Mitchell: It would be presumptuous of me to answer that question until we have seen the inspector's report and examined what he says.

Motorway Network

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied that the current motorway network is adequate for the present level of traffic.

Mrs. Chalker: Except where improvements or additions are already under construction or are planned, the network is adequate at present.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that the volume of traffic on some stretches of motorway—particularly on the M1 and M6—is excessive and that there is a strong argument for building new stretches of motorway to complement these busy stretches, thereby easing congestion?

Mrs. Chalker: I am sure my hon. Friend is well aware that my Department's proposals for the extension of the M40 will, if they go ahead, considerably ease passage on the M1. By increasing total expenditure on motorways and trunk roads by 22 per cent. over the next three years we are doing our best to keep up with the increasing amount of traffic using our roads.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister agree that the motorway network and traffic levels in Lancashire would be made more adequate if the Government decided to link the M65 with the M6? When can we expect a decision on the restoration of that motorway scheme to the Government's programme?

Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience, and I shall be only too glad when we reach a decision on the matter. I expect that will be fairly soon, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that the north-west has been provided with more motorways than many other areas which have waited a long time for an improvement to their infrastructure.

Mr. Richard Page: I compliment my hon. Friend on the pressure that she has exerted to ensure that the M25 is completed, but can she say whether any studies have been made on the introduction of flexibility and extra lanes, if required, as the traffic build-up, especially through my constituency, already suggests that that motorway will be heavily over-subscribed? Will the existing arrangements be adequate?

Mrs. Chalker: We have, of course, made provision in certain parts of the M25 for four-lane carriageways. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but until we have completed the remainder—slightly less that 50 per cent.—of the M25, there will be some unnatural flows of vehicles seeking to use the route in a different way. I must ask my hon. Friend to be patient, but I assure him that we have the matter under serious consideration.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that the smugness of her answer to the original question will be much resented in Wales, given that the Severn bridge is very much part of the M4? What is she going to do about all the difficulties with the bridge, the persistent hold-ups, one-lane traffic and, most recently, the fact that an overtime ban is being enforced by those employed on essential repairs?

Mrs. Chalker: I have no intention of being smug about any answer that I give in the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our studies on the Severn crossing and what is to be done with it are a matter for maximum priority by the Department. I shall certainly look into the matter if there are industrial relations problems. However, I dare say that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends could do a lot to help solve them instead of making unfounded statements.

Sir Dudley Smith: What is the state of play with the M40, which will ultimately link Birmingham and London? My hon. Friend will be well aware it has been in gestation for nearly 15 years.

Mrs. Chalker: I am only too well aware of the problems which a long period of planning and going through the public inquiry system can bring about. However, the report has appeared in our Department during the past fortnight. We shall be progressing it


thoroughly and as quickly as possible. I hope to make an announcement by the end of the year, after my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport have considered its details. On present plans, we expect construction to start in 1987, as in 1985 we shall have to complete the side roads, compulsory purchase orders and any possible inquiries.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is it not a fact that poorly repaired motorways have caused some of the delay, that there is no real need to increase the motorway network, and that, with a speedy recovery and construction of the M25, there will be no further problems?

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot say that my crystal ball is as accurate as that of my hon. Friend and that there might not be problems in future. Although we are taking every possible step to minimise the effect on road users of repairing our roads, so that they last another 20 years, we must keep a watching brief on the development of different modes of transport in Britain.

A423

Mr. Baldry: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that the A423 road between Oxford and Banbury is adequate for the weight and volume of traffic that it carries.

Mrs. Chalker: No, Sir. My hon. Friend is aware of our proposals for extending the M40, which would substantially reduce traffic on the A423.

Mr. Baldry: Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of north Oxfordshire would be relieved if the Government gave a definite commitment to constructing the M40? We do not want to hear my hon. Friend say, "If the M40 goes ahead." We want a definite commitment that it will go ahead. As my hon. Friend well knows, the trunk road is deplorable and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) has mentioned, we have been waiting about 15 years for the M40, during which time no real improvements to that trunk road have been made. Is my hon. Friend aware that I was also disturbed to hear her say that the M40 would not start until 1987? I thought that it was to be in the trunk road programme from 1986.

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that work will start in 1986, but he knows as well as I do that, should the inspector recommend that we go forward with that plan, we shall start as soon as possible. I accept that conditions on the A423 are far from satisfactory. We are carrying out an accident and congestion study to identify any action that can be implemented before the M40 becomes a reality for his, and many other, constituents.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problems of that part of the country are on not only a north-south but an east-west axis? When assessing the A423, will she also have a close look at the A43, which is even more congested?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of the need for improvement at Blisworth and many other places along the A43. There are a number of plans in the White Paper. In the past two years schemes have been brought forward to add to the improvements planned for the A43, which should help to release some of my hon. Friend's constituents from those traffic jams.

Sealink UK Ltd.

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assurances he can give that the current employees of Sealink will be given the opportunity to acquire a stake in the equity of their company.

Mr. Ridley: I welcome the British Railways Board's assurance that in assessing offers for Sealink it will take into account the ability and willingness of prospective purchasers to give employees an opportunity to participate in a share ownership scheme.

Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the ultimate decision is his? Will he follow the example set by the Government in relation to the National Freight Company and British Telecom, which allows employees a minimum of £70 or £75 worth of shares? Does he agree that the best way forward is to ensure that the work force is involved and that, if Sealink is to be privatised, employees should have at least a 20 per cent. stake in the equity?

Mr. Ridley: I share the hon. Gentleman's view. That is why I asked British Rail to include in the letter inviting bids the following:
In determining the acceptability of offers the British Railways Board will have regard to…a prospective purchaser's ability and willingness to extend to Sealink UK's employees an opportunity to participate in a share ownership scheme.
We must await the bids.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Legal Aid

Mr. Dubs: asked the Attorney-General if he has any proposals to change the method of assessing the eligibility of applicants for civil legal aid.

Mr. Parry: asked the Attorney-General what plans he has to change the method of considering the eligibility of applications for civil legal aid.

Ms. Harman: asked the Attorney-General if he has any plans to change the method of determining eligibility for civil legal aid.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): Assessment of financial eligibility for civil legal aid is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. He and the Lord Chancellor are considering the recent Rayner scrutiny report, but no decisions on the main recommendations have yet been reached.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Attorney-General aware of the widespread concern that confidential information given by applicants for legal aid is being used by the DHSS for other purposes, that that appears to be in accordance with confidential DHSS guidance to staff and that staff are probably acting in breach of the Legal Aid Act 1974? Will the Attorney-General look into that matter?

The Attorney-General: The case of Whipman v. Whipman has recently been drawn to my attention. I am considering it urgently and intend to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services as soon as possible.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is an element of artificiality about this, in


that page 6 of a legal aid application contains a direction to the effect that financial information will be supplied to the Department of Health and Social Security? Is not the effect of that that the Department is supposed to read the information for computing legal aid and to turn a blind eye if a possible case of fraud is suspected?

The Attorney-General: That problem becomes particularly acute when, in a remote district, the same official may deal with both supplementary benefit and legal aid applications.
One of the problems results from the purposes for which the confidentiality was imposed. I understand—although I have not read it—that Hansard of the day was clearly reviewed by the learned judge who tried the Whipman v. Whipman case, in which, referring to the purpose of the confidentiality, he said that the party applying for a certificate has to set out his case, as a defendant, or, if he is a plaintiff, what his case would be, and the witnesses he proposes to put before the court. It would be quite wrong if that information were passed to anyone other than the person's own legal advisers.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In view of the Lord Chancellor's responsibility for these matters, and since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to talk about the problem and answer questions here, is this a matter that should be discussed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, as it needs detailed investigation?

The Attorney-General: It is not for me to say what matters should be discussed by the Home Affairs Committee. The consequences of the Whipman decision are serious. If an errant husband cannot be traced and the wife is compelled to apply for supplementary benefit, which may be well below the sum ordered by the court, and that husband applies for legal aid, his name and address will be known to the DHSS. However, if the decision is right, that cannot be used to provide the remedy which the wife so badly needs.

Mr. Lawrence: If there is any doubt about the law, and if there is any doubt arising from the case mentioned, have not successive Labour Governments for 11 years also made the same mistake? Is it not time that the law was changed? Do not most people want applications for legal aid to be checked for fraud?

The Attorney-General: The case occurred in 1951. The L code, as the legal aid code is called, is applied by the DHSS. It used to be applied by the National Assistance Board and then the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The code has been in existence for 30 years, which covers the lifetime of a number of Governments of both political complexions.

Mr. John Morris: Was the Attorney-General consulted by the DHSS before its spokesman said that the DHSS had been legally advised that the code did not contravene the law? Was the DHSS aware of the comments of Commissioner Grazebrook in the case of Whipman v. Whipman? Can the Attorney-General confirm that the Lord Chancellor believes that it is important that people should not be inhibited from applying for legal aid because of the fear of disclosure of information?
As the Attorney-General has a responsibility to authorise prosecutions under section 22 of the Legal Aid

Act 1974, will he refer any breaches of the law to the Director of Public Prosecutions so that he may consider taking action?

The Attorney-General: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his industry and diligence in finding the case—a fact which, unfortunately, I learnt from the newspapers this weekend rather than direct from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The matter is under urgent consideration. However, it would be difficult to prosecute officials who had been given instructions—if the L code does so—for committing a criminal offence when, in fact, they were obeying those instructions. The whole matter is being given the most urgent consideration.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Attorney-General what further progress has been made in seeking to reduce the disparities in the grant of legal aid between different magistrates' courts.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The Lord Chancellor has a number of measures in hand to promote greater consistency in the grant of legal aid for the magistrates' courts. The most important of these is the introduction from 1 March 1984 of a right of recourse from the refusal of legal aid by the courts in certain cases.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Solicitor-General not aware of the wide variations in the refusal rates among magistrates' courts? For example, the rate in Cardiff in 1982 was 7·5 per cent., in Swansea 15 per cent. and in Lower Rhymney 34 per cent.
We welcome the new right of recourse. What steps will the Government take to monitor the effectiveness of the new right? How will they publicise the right to solicitors and potential appellants?

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the new regulations introduced in March, which provide for recourse in certain circumstances. There is an unacceptable degree of inconsistency, and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor recognises that. The existence of the regulations is well known. They are referred to in the form of refusal which a justice's clerk hands to a disappointed applicant for legal aid.
In addition, the Lord Chancellor has asked the advisory committee to determine whether the Widgery criteria, as they are known, for the grant of legal aid in criminal cases should be improved. He expects a report in the autumn. He has already arranged for the collection of statistics from courts to be improved to provide a clearer and more reliable picture. He is anxiously considering the matter and intends to take whatever steps are open to him.

Mr. Loyden: Is consideration being given not only to the personal approach but to the general public interest in certain cases where the criteria should be waived? Is the Solicitor-General aware of the case of one of my constituents, Mrs. Doreen Wardle, whose son died from glue sniffing? She is inhibited from proceeding with an investigation of that case because of the high costs involved.

The Solicitor-General: The criteria are under consideration by the Lord Chancellor and the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. If he cares to write to the Lord Chancellor about the particular circumstances, I know that


he will receive a carefully considered reply. It is now for the advisory committee to make its report to the Lord Chancellor, who will then consider what changes, if any, need to be made.

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Attorney-General if he will now publish the Rayner report on legal aid assessments.

The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 9 May.

Mr. Fraser: What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reaction to the proposal by the Rayner committee to transfer the business of assessment from the DHSS to the Lord Chancellor's Department? Before taking any steps in that direction, will the Attorney-General consult legal aid practitioners so that the money saved will not be at the expense of the legal aid service?

The Attorney-General: The decision whether to transfer is a major part of the recommendation, and it is a matter which no doubt my noble Friend will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. On that and all other matters that are under urgent consideration, I hope that we shall be able to reach a decision soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid Use

Mr. Bowen Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to continue his efforts to ensure that aid is used by host countries for developmentally sound purposes.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): All spending proposals in my Department are carefully appraised to ensure that they can produce a satisfactory return to the host country and have a positive impact on their development. Monitoring and evaluation procedures have recently been strengthened. Efforts are being made to achieve better co-ordination between donors and with recipient Governments.

Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the report of the Independent Group on British Aid that he is sacrificing the quality of British aid by giving greater weight to Britain's commercial and industrial need?

Mr. Raison: No, Sir, I do not believe that quality is being sacrificed for Britain's commercial interests. The bulk of our aid goes to the poorer countries, where it is needed most. Its use continues to be fully appraised to make sure that its development impact is satisfactory.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some countries, such as Zambia, accept foreign aid but refuse to remit money owing to individuals who have left the country? Will he impress on these Governments that, unless they abide by international commitments, they cannot expect to continue to be recipients of our foreign aid?

Mr. Raison: We are always ready to press Governments to pay out moneys which they should pay, but I am reluctant to use the foreign aid programme as a means of bringing that about.

Mr. Deakins: Is there not a risk that the aid for trade provision will be used by some developing countries for purposes other than those that are developmentally sound, at the behest of British exporters?

Mr. Raison: It is conceivable that there could be a risk, but it is for my Department to approve all aid and trade provision allocations, and we look at the developmental considerations carefully.

UNESCO (Ministerial Correspondence)

Mr. Baldry: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been received to the letter of 2 April from the Minister for Overseas Development to the director general of UNESCO.

Mr. Raison: I have not yet received a direct response to my letter, but I reinforced the message in it when Mr. M'Bow called on me on 18 April. Our proposals are currently being debated by the executive board.

Mr. Baldry: In view of the recent history of UNESCO, what specific improvements are the Government seeking; and, if those improvements are not forthcoming, will my right hon. Friend consider that Britain should withdraw from UNESCO?

Mr. Raison: In my letter to Mr. M'Bow I set out the improvements that we require. It would not be possible to list them all here, but they relate to the most effective use of resources, reducing the political content of UNESCO and, generally speaking, greater emphasis on action rather than theoretical studies. Mr. M'Bow understands that, if reforms are not achieved, our membership of UNESCO will be in great doubt.

Mr. Benn: Do not the real objections to UNESCO come from multinational newspapers and television corporations, which object strongly to developing countries trying to develop their own systems so that they can receive information about their societies and not fall under the control of the international companies that seek to dominate their media?

Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman gives a distorted impression of what we are doing. I have already explained our objections. It is true that there have been apprehensions lest the New World Information and Communication Order should lead to some loss of freedom among the media. We should be unhappy about that if it came to pass.

Africa (Power Generation)

Mr. Rhodes James: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is being provided for the power generation projects in Africa.

Mr. Raison: We are providing aid for such projects in 10 countries. Details will be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Rhodes James: I should like to ask a particular question about the new Kiambere project in Kenya. What is the cost of the project to the British taxpayer? While I accept that the potential advantages to Kenya are considerable, what will be the impact on jobs and industry in this country?

Mr. Raison: Our grant to Kenya for the Kiambere project is up to £12·3 million. I have no doubt that that will be valuable to Kenya. It will also provide important contracts for switchyard equipment, transmission lines and general electrical work for British companies.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend know that there is a major hydroelectric power station on the border between Namibia and Angola, which was designed to supply power to Angola? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, when the situation demands and it is possible for us to give such help, he will be prepared to recommend support to bring the two generators into use to supply power to southern Angola?

Mr. Raison: I cannot give such an undertaking, but if a proposal is put to me at the appropriate time I shall consider it carefully.

Following are the details:


Country and Purpose
Maximum Amount Allotted £million


Kenya



Cost of contracts won by British companies in construction of 140MW hydro power project at Kiambere
12·3


Sudan



Construction of 60MW power station at Khartoum North*
50·5


Construction of 40MW extension to Burri power station*
24·2


Rehabilitation of original Burri power station
8·22


Somalia



Rehabilitation and replacement of generators in Hargeisa, Berbera and Burao and associated equipment
1·575


Tanzania



Rehabilitation of Mtwara power station
0·22


Uganda



Consultancy on rehabilitation and uprating of Owen Falls power station
0·51


Mozambique



Installation of two 2·5MW generators and ancillary equipment at Pemba power station, and supervisory consultancy
3·03


Botswana



Aid and Trade provision grant for equipment for Morupule power station
4·418


Zimbabwe



Aid and Trade provision grant for pipework at Hwange power station.
1·00


* Help will be given with running both power stations for the next 2 to 3 years.

In addition spare parts have recently been provided to the Gambia, and spares and follow-up service to a generation project in Guinea-Bissau.

Pakistan

Mr. Soames: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent commitments of aid have been made to Pakistan.

Mr. Raison: At the World Bank Consortium meeting on Pakistan in April we announced a further £25 million of grant-aid to Pakistan for projects to be agreed with the

Pakistan Government. We also announced a grant of £1 million to a programme aimed at discouraging the growth of narcotic drugs.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Pakistan has a particularly serious problem with the large numbers of refugees coming from Afghanistan? During the discussion with the Pakistan Government, was any reference made to tagging aid specifically to help the Afghans?

Mr. Raison: We recognise the great problem faced by the Afghan refugees, and we respect the response of the Pakistan Government to the problem. Since 1980 we have allocated about £21 million for the support of those refugees.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Pakistan I was told of the country's gratitude for the aid given to the refugees? However, have the other countries which also condemned the situation that produced the refugees given money proportionate to their means, and, if not, will Her Majesty's Government address them?

Mr. Raison: I cannot answer for all the other countries concerned. However, the overall response to the problem of Afghan refugees in Pakistan has not been unsatisfactory.

ACP-EC Conference

Mr. Key: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the African, Caribbean and Pacific/European Community Council in Fiji.

Mr. Raison: The annual ACP-EC Council meeting on 2 May discussed issues relating to the management of the second Lomé convention. The third ACP-EC negotiating conference on a successor to the convention on 3 to 5 May made satisfactory progress, and it was agreed that a fourth negotiating conference would be held in Luxembourg on 28 to 29 June.

Mr. Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest contribution of the Lomé convention has been towards the development of trade rather than to making available quantities of aid money? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government are pursuing that line?

Mr. Raison: I agree with my hon. Friend. The trade aspect of the Lomé convention is extremely important. In the negotiations we have stressed the need for further liberalisation of trade in the next convention.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister said that satisfactory progress had been made at the talks. Therefore, can he tell us why there was no discussion of either the amount of finance or the criteria for finance and disbursement? There was virtually no discussion of trade. How does the Minister reconcile the ACP countries' demand that there should be serious discussion of the Community's relationship with South Africa with the invitation to Mr. Pieter Botha to come to this country?

Mr. Raison: It has always been understood that finance should be tackled at the end of the negotiations. I made clear my views on trade. There was some discussion of trade. It is not true that there was no discussion of trade. A group was devoted to it.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about Mr. Botha have little relevance to the matter.

Mr. Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sound economic development in many of these countries requires measures to reduce the rate of growth of their populations? Did he therefore raise that issue, or have it raised, at the recent talks for the ACP-EC renewal? If not, will he do so in future?

Mr. Raison: The question of population was raised, but it did not feature prominently. However, the Government have done a considerable amount in that area. Our support for population activities has increased considerably in recent years and it will continue to grow.

Mr. Deakins: Does not the scope of the Lomé convention negotiations and renegotiations need radical

revision to take account of the gamut of relationships between the poor and rich countries represented and of many other different matters, including the dumping of surpluses under the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Raison: The Lomé relationship is already wide-ranging. We discussed in Fiji, and will continue to discuss, matters covering a great deal of ground, and our discussions touch at certain points on food aid. I should be reluctant to see the scope of the convention becoming wider and wider. It is important to make the convention effective.

Mr. Bowen-Wells: Was any progress made on the question of the rules of origin applying to the ACP countries?

Mr. Raison: Some progress was made, but I hope that we can achieve more.

Teachers (Industrial Action)

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the indifference of Her Majesty's Government to the effect of the teachers' strike.
The importance of this matter is specific to a number of schools in my constituency. Over the weekend I was made aware of the problem as it affects three high schools which take children up to the age of 18 years. The selective and partial strikes, of which notice is given only 24 hours beforehand, have a cumulative effect. The greatest effect arises out of the cessation of teachers' voluntary lunchtime supervision of meals. As a result of that lack of supervision the pupils go home, and I am advised that attendance in the afternoons is 50 per cent. or less. One headmaster has also advised me that he expects the cumulative effect of the industrial action to be even greater after the spring bank holiday.
The effect of the strike on one middle school on a large housing estate in south Leeds is catastrophic. Over the years, an excellent headmaster and staff have reduced the amount of truancy and done other good work. The strike will set back progress by a number of years.
I received my information last Friday and Saturday. I therefore could not have brought it to the House on Thursday or Wednesday to enable the business to be altered. I am advised that in Bruntcliffe and Morley high schools, and also Rodillian school, formerly Rothwell, it is planned that from lunchtime today about 10 members of staff in each school will be called upon to strike during each session. The cumulative effect of that action on the schools will he that at least 1,100 pupils will have to be sent home for part of the day. It is understood that the action could continue all week. One of the schools has been advised by a newspaper, and perhaps by letter, that all the children from the schools will be sent home as teachers refuse to cover for absent colleagues.
It is vital that this matter should be discussed. We cannot wait for the usual channels to operate on Wednesday. This matter is important to my constituents today, but there has been no chance for us to discuss it or for the Secretary of State to tell us what the Government propose to do.
The problem is not only short-term. One headmaster told me that nobody was responding to advertisements for jobs in the school—in particular to advertisements for mathematics teachers.
Why do we have to wait? This is not a political matter, as at the last general election 70 per cent. of teachers voted for parties other than the Labour party. I am told that we face such problems in Morley because the Secretary of State for Education and Science represents a Leeds constituency. It does not matter to me whether that is right or wrong, but to wait until the end of the week would be wrong. My duty is to my constituents in Morley and Leeds, South. There will be real problems this week, and I do not want to watch "Look North" or the "Calendar" programme, or wait until after 10.30 pm tonight, to see it all discussed on television. I want the matter debated on the Floor of the House. That is where it should be debated, and that is why I am making an application under Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the indifference of Her Majesty's Government to the effect of the teachers' strike.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter, but he will understand that the decision I must make is whether to give the issue precedence over the business that has already been set down for today or tomorrow. I listened carefully to what he said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific matter of public importance that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the practices of Ministers responsible for Government Departments and the conduct of the police in their harassment of miners and their families during the present mining dispute.
I am making this application because some new factors have emerged in the past few days and they should be discussed before the recess. The factors relate to new evidence of Government intervention from various Departments, under the direct instructions of responsible Ministers, who are supposed to be answerable to Parliament but who are claiming to be standing back from the dispute. The reality is the very opposite. Ministers have authorised several administrative actions, none of which has been reported to the House.
First, instructions have gone out to local offices to delay payments of supplementary benefits, even on the reduced scale, so that some miners' families are not getting their Giro cheques. Secondly, those who work for firms which have been indirectly affected by the dispute and have been laid off by their employers are being treated as strikers and being denied benefit. Thirdly, miners' wives who are expecting babies are being denied grants for baby clothes and basic equipment needed for their children. Fourthly, miners who accepted earlier retirement late last year but whose formal date of leaving fell after 1 March, are being told that they can no longer claim the redundancy pay which was an integral part of the scheme and are being referred back to the Department of Energy, which is not their employer.
Fifthly, the National Coal Board is threatening that miners who do not work this week will be denied the holiday pay entitlement which they earned from work done before the strike began. Sixthly, the electricity authorities are threatening to cut off miners' households unless payments are made on a weekly scale, which would almost take away the full amount of the meagre benefits that are being paid. Seventhly, the police have been instructed to enter the homes of miners who are on strike to search for and evict, under threat of arrest, any other miners who might be staying there, and miners' wives are being harassed in the streets by police patrols. Eighthly, the bail

conditions sought by the police and granted by magistrates amount to a systematic denial of civil liberties and the right of assembly when the person concerned has not been convicted of any offence by any court. Lastly, women who are attending pitheads in support of the miners are being harassed and subjected to the same penalties as their husbands.
I submit that these issues are of such importance that if the House ignores them it will give the impression that we are simply not interested in the living conditions of tens of thousands of families and have virtually abdicated our responsibilities to discuss matters that are of public concern, including the maintenance of civil liberties. Moreover, if this debate is again denied, Ministers will conclude that they are free to tighten the screw on miners and their families without having to account to Parliament for their actions.
As I entered the House I heard that a meeting that had been privately and secretly arranged between the NUM and the Coal Board tomorrow had been cancelled by the board. If we do not debate the issue, we shall go through this week and the recess without any public discussion of a matter which, whatever view hon. Members take of it, is of prime concern to those who work in an essential industry, those who work around it and the community, which depends, and always will depend, on the maintenance of the coal industry.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the practices of Ministers responsible for Government Departments and the conduct of the police in the harassment of miners and their families during the present mining dispute.
I listened with great care to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I have to give him the same answer as I gave the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after the third Standing Order No. 10 application.

Rail Services (Yorkshire)

Mr. Conal Gregory: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the disruption of rail transport emanating from Yorkshire owing to secondary picketing related to the current miners' dispute.
Secondary picketing by rail union militants in Yorkshire today has caused widespread disruption of public transport. These hard-line Left wingers, acting without any democratic mandate, do not serve the best interests of the railway industry, in which the Government authorised investment of £328 million last year.
The action today, which has disrupted all direct traffic on the east coast mainline, is the most serious to date. Such railwaymen—if they can be called that—are putting the plans for electrification in jeopardy and will cause even more passengers to switch to other forms of transport. I thwarted their intentions and, having left York at 8.45 this morning, arrived at the House about six hours later. Other passengers may be less persistent.
How can British Rail achieve better productivity and efficiency, responding positively to the Government, who have sanctioned over £2,000 million of investment since May 1979, when undemocratic militants take secondary picketing action?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the disruption of rail transport in Yorkshire owing to secondary picketing related to the current miners' dispute.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore submit his application to the House.

Coal Industry Dispute

Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to raise again the questions put to you by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in his application for an emergency debate, but the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a fact which had only recently come to light. The NUM was expecting to have a meeting with the Coal Board tomorrow, but that meeting has been cancelled.
In the light of that development, would not it be appropriate, particularly as the Leader of the House is here, for a statement to be made to the House, or for the business of the House to be rearranged, so that we may discuss the matter?
Am I right in thinking that as no motion has been tabled for the Opposition day on Wednesday, it would be possible, within the rules of order, for the Leader of the Opposition, if he so wished, to use that half day for such a debate?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for statements that may or may not be made, and I am also not responsible for the choice of subject on Opposition days.

Standing Order No. 10 Applications

Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that when Standing Order No. 10 applications are moved Ministers' offices are notified and it is a normal courtesy for Ministers —it was certainly observed when the previous Labour Government were in office—or their junior Ministers to be present on the Government Front Bench? Is it not a gross discourtesy to the House that Ministers from the relevant Departments have not been present for the two applications that have been made this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: This matter has been raised before. As I have said previously, this is not a matter for me.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c

Ordered,
That the draft Job Release Act 1977 (Continuation) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

European Community

Mr. Jim Spicer: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the vital role that a closely knit European Community could and should play in world affairs, congratulates both the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government on their continuing efforts to ensure a strong voice in Europe for Britain and that all necessary changes are made within the Community to sustain respect for that institution and to enhance its authority both internally and externally.

Mr. Speaker: I should tell the House that I have not selected the amendment.

Mr. Spicer: We stand on the threshold of the second set of elections to the European Parliament, which take place on 14 June. It may not be necessary to remind hon. Members of that fact, but for the public it cannot be said too often. All the projections, and all the pundits who take an interest in such matters, point to a low turnout and an almost complete lack of interest among the general public in most matters relating to the European Community, and above all in the voting intentions of the general public on 14 June. I hope that that will turn out to be a false prediction and that we shall have a good turnout to reflect the interest of the general public on that occasion. I stress that our membership of the European Community is a vital British interest which must be protected and enlarged upon at all costs.
The starting point for and the need of a European Community was clearly established in the early post-war days, and nothing has happened since those days to diminish the need for such a community. In fact, precisely the opposite is the case and there is a greater need than ever for a strong, united European voice on the world stage. I was reminded by his grandson only last week of a comment made at a press conference in Yorkshire by Lord Stockton, formerly Mr. Harold Macmillan, at the time of the 1979 general election. He was asked by a member of the press why he believed there was any purpose or point in there being a European Community. He replied:
I was almost killed in the first world war. My son, Maurice, was almost killed in the second world war. My belief in a European community is based upon the fact that my grandson will not be killed in a third world war started in Europe.
That remains the main feature of a European community. That is why many people in the House and outside it are still staunch Europeans, and that should not be forgotten.
I became a European on either 2 May or 3 May 1945, when I was about 18 years of age. I had come up through France, Belgium and Holland and I finished the war in that once great city of Hamburg. As I looked upon the desolation that had been created by a second world war and thought about the misery and death that had been occasioned during that war, I became a European. I have held staunchly to that view ever since. It made me determined to play my part in bringing together a European community of nation states—I emphasise the words "nation states"—which could play a major part in preventing such a catastrophe again. During the last 20 years I have played what little part I could to help to bring about a community which could live up to those early ideals.
There are many other important roles for a European Community, and no hon. Member should forget them. It should continually work to abolish intolerable trade barriers, which still exist in the community. One does not


need to be reminded of the events of six weeks ago when, up and down the Community, lorries were held up and protests mounted because of the burdens placed on trade. That cost lorry drivers much time, and placed extra burdens and costs on moving goods between the member states.
The Community should co-operate strongly in research and development. There is much that we can and should be proud of in that sphere. We set an example to the rest of the world on the nuclear side. I hope that we shall soon see the first benefits of European co-operation.
The Community should become involved in all areas of economic and social activity, which can best be dealt with at that level. Throughout my speech I shall say which matters should be dealt with at Community level because that is the best way to deal with them.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I am worried about my hon. Friend's terminology. The last part of the motion enjoins the House to vote for a motion on the Community to
enhance its authority both internally and externally.
Earlier, my hon. Friend spoke of a Europe of nation states. I hope that he will explain to the House how he resolves that contradiction and will put forward some principles so that we can understand which programmes are best dealt with at national level and which at EC level.

Mr. Spicer: I expected my hon. Friend to use his usual probing authority to question a word here and there. As I continue, he will understand where I think that that authority should rest with the Community and where it should not. I shall do my best, but if he is not satisfied perhaps he will intervene again.
The Community should consider research and development in defence procurement. The present duplication and cost of research and development are appalling. It may only be a pipe dream, but we should try to arrive at the day when, instead of a British battle tank, a German battle tank and a French battle tank competing for one market in the 1990s, the Community produces one battle tank. That would mark a major step forward and would save a great deal of money.
Finally, and of prime importance, the Community has a decisive role to play in the Third world. During the last century there was never a time when the Third world faced the possibility of famine on the scale which we must now expect.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Before the hon. Gentleman raised his point about developing battle tanks, he suggested that the establishment of the Community was a guarantee against another war in Europe. Where will these battle tanks be used? Presumably they will be available for use in Europe. Is it not true that there is a danger of war not between us and our western European neighbours—that has nothing to do with the Community—but between east and west Europe? We are stoking up the arms race with battle tanks in the West, of which the hon. Gentleman is so fond, with battle tanks in the East, and with the deployment of ever more nuclear missiles in Europe. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in what way the European Community will diminish the danger of war between East and West—which is the real danger—rather than considering what happened in a previous generation in western Europe?

Mr. Spicer: How quickly we move from the main point. I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The European Community has contributed to peace, and when I sit, as I do until 14 June, in the European Parliament with my French and German colleagues I find it inconceivable that there could be another war between France and Germany. That stems from the EC. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about research and development and battle tanks, if we are faced with four times as many Russian tanks as Western tanks, the West must get the maximum output for the minimum cost to arm our defensive forces.

Mr. Leighton: That is what NATO does.

Mr. Spicer: NATO uses those tanks on the fields of battle, but nothing in the treaty prohibits research and development in that area. The European Parliament has already made great progress in this matter, and I hope that it will continue to do so in the years ahead.
The Third world must be of prime importance to us all. In 1984 the African famine will probably be the worst this century and all the predictions are that it will continue for some time. If ever there was an area in which the EC should play a major part, it is in the relief of that famine.
I pay tribute to the work of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, which, during the past five years, has given a lead in all those areas and has been in the forefront of pressing for more action in the Community. I hope that many of those Conservatives will be returned, augmented by new Members.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend promised that he would explain the principles by which he would recommend European action as opposed to action on a national level. Will he explain why it is impossible for the British taxpayer, through our national institutions, to relieve that famine, if we decide to do so, and why it is so much better to do it on a European basis?

Mr. Spicer: I am perfectly happy to follow that line. At Question Time today we discussed what we should do unilaterally, but in this area we need co-operation and co-ordination. How can we inform French territories or Portuguese territories such as Angola and Mozambique that we shall contribute our share unilaterally? The aid must be co-ordinated, and the right body to do that is the EC. I said that I would try to answer my hon. Friend's point towards the end of my speech.
All the areas that I have mentioned are ones where a sensible person can subscribe to the idea of a community. The Community's most important function is in foreign affairs. Every six months the Heads of Government meet, and their meetings are augmented by successive meetings of the Council of Ministers and by Foreign Ministers meeting in political co-operation. At all those meetings a host of vital decisions could and should be made both by the Foreign Ministers meeting in political co-operation and by the Heads of Government.
Let me give three or four examples. Could we as a Community not do more to resolve the conflict in Cyprus, which is damaging not just to the people of Cyprus—we should remember that it is an associate member state of the Community—and bringing misery to them, but to Greek-Turkish relations and to the Greeks and Turks in NATO, thus diminishing NATO's role?
Secondly, are we prepared to take account of the recent changes in southern Africa? All those changes, which


have come about only in the past two or three months, offer hope to the unhappy people of Mozambigue, Angola and all the other front-line states, which slowly but surely have seen the infrastructure of their countries destroyed, whether by outside influence or their own inability to keep the infrastructure in good order.
Are we going to play a much greater role in restoring the economies and infrastructure of those countries? Are we prepared to grasp the nettle and say that anything that happens in those front-line states will be done in conjunction with South Africa, and are we prepared to co-operate with South Africa and the front-line states in rebuildng the economies of those countries? That is a question that I ask Opposition right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I am sorry that the leader of the Liberal party is not present, because I am sure that he would be the first to say, "Certainly not. We do not even wish to see the Prime Minister of South Africa coming to this country when matters such as this will be discussed."
I believe that such matters should be discussed. If one wants to know why, one need not go further than the speech by President Machel at the meeting between Prime Minister Botha and himself.

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forrest): Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1947 the late Ernest Bevin, among others, when discussing early plans for European unity, saw as a concomitant of that unity co-operation amongst powers with African responsibilities for development in that continent? He included South Africa in his thinking.

Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I was not around in 1947.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Hamburg 1945 and 1947 were after 1945.

Mr. Spicer: That was 1945. It was not 1947. In 1947 I was on my way to Kenya.
My hon. Friend's point is well made. I shall return to President Machel and paraphrase what he said at that meeting. He said, "We are all Africans, be we black or white. For too long we have destroyed and fought over our continent and as a result our people have suffered. Let us now come together and let us work together in friendship and in hope for the future, doing the best we can for our own people." I give that message to the Opposition, and I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will say something about it.
My third question is: have we hammered out a positive European policy in relation to the Gulf war? It is important that there should be a European voice on that.

Mr. Budgen: Why?

Mr. Spicer: I know that my hon. Friend will continue like this throughout the debate. It is because the Gulf states want to hear a European voice. They are sensitive about the role of the United States, because they know that in election year it is playing both horses. It is looking to the Israelis, and having to rely on the Arabs. In that context, our friendship and alliance with the Gulf states is of prime importance.
My final point on foreign affairs is whether we are as one in our resolve to see an end of the terrorism so frequently exported by countries such as Libya. What a

major plus it would have been for the European Community if, in the days following the savage murder of Woman Police Constable Fletcher in St. James's square, there had been a firm announcement from all 10 member states of the European Community saying, "Enough is enough. We outlaw Libya and any other country that intends to behave as Libya has behaved." That is what could and should be done. I know that it may seem to be pie in the sky.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Why could not those steps be taken by international co-operation, without any reference to the European Economic Community?

Mr. Spicer: The main forum for international co-operation is the United Nations. I hazard a guess that had such a matter gone to the United Nations it would still be discussing it with all the power blocs moving. The European Community is meant to be of European origin and we have a definitive European role. If we cannot agree on such matters, it is a pretty poor outlook for the world. Those four matters should be talked about in the Council of Ministers, whether it be by the Heads of State or the Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman and I were parliamentary colleagues in the European Parliament when it was indirectly elected. At that time we were worried about arms and about our relations with Latin America. We were members of the European Parliament Latin American group. Has he any views on the end-user certificates in relation to arms, particularly the export to Argentina by West Germany of submarines, Meko 360 and Meko 140 frigates, and other sophisticated arms from the French? Should not the Community do something about that?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but it is easy to point the finger at the West German Government, who were at that time a Social Democratic Government, and at France, which had a Socialist or a Gaullist Government. If one wanted to extend the matter, one could point the finger at the previous Labour Government, because they were instrumental in providing the Argentine fleet with a large part of its surface vessels. I shall leave the matter there. If we wish to pursue it further, we can.

Mr. Dalyell: There are Rolls-Royce engines, David Brown gear boxes and Decca navigation equipment, all made by us, in the formidable weaponry. [Laughter.] Does that not raise serious questions—it is far from a laughing matter—about the export of arms. Whatever view one takes of the Falklands, our troops are involved and are therefore in danger from highly sophisticated weapons provided by ourselves and our European partners. Should not there be European co-operation on such matters?

Mr. Spicer: That can be achieved only by a total embargo on the export of arms, otherwise the end user, wherever he may be, will always manage to get his hands on them. However, that is moving somewhat away from the main thrust of this discussion.
An agenda including the points that I have raised would be welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, because it is to provide a European resolve and European view on such matters that the Community was


first founded. Instead, time after time these vital matters which we should be discussing within the Community are pushed to one side to allow room for a further "cobbling together" of short-term solutions on budgetary and agricultural matters.
We all know that the Prime Minister wants to see longterm solutions of these internal problems and also an end to the fudging of issues on a year-to-year basis. What sense can there he in Ministers and Heads of Government gathering around a table and proceeding to argue about milk, butter or budgetary matters? We need a long-term solution. It is for that that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been working over the years. My right hon. Friend wishes to clear the decks, to find long-term solutions to these matters and then to concentrate Community activity in the areas in which it is most important.
If we are in the business of clearing the decks, it is probably high time that we spent a little time considering and reassessing the roles of the various Community institutions. After all, the Community of Six was formed in 1958. It is now a Community of Ten, soon to be Twelve. What was right for the Six in 1958 is not necessarily right today. Let us start from the central proposition, which will please many of my hon. Friends, that Community institutions should assume only those responsibilities which are best discharged at Community level. That is the key point and a broad statement of the way in which I believe that the Community as a whole should work.
I do not wish to spend too long on the Council of Ministers, but if it is asked to carry out additional tasks it must have a tougher, harder and possibly larger secretariat that will spend more time considering the problems that will face the community in the future. My hon. Friend the Minister may disagree, but a forward plan is clearly needed to consider situations in which immediate decisions will be desirable. That capacity for rapid decision making is the main change that I would make in the operation of the Council of Ministers.
As for the European Commission, I must admit that I sometimes find it a most puzzling body, and the views handed down from it at times make very little sense. In my view, it is time that the Commission took a long hard look at article 100 of the treaty of Rome. At the moment far too much of what emanates from the Commission is contentious and does not really lie within the competence of the Community or within the treaty of Rome. A much stronger line should be taken on that. My view can be summed up in the simple phrase, "No harmonisation for the sake of harmonisation." That was the watchword of many nominated Members of the European Parliament and I hope that the new Members, especially Conservatives, will strictly follow that line.
Thirdly, as regards the European Parliament, five years is but a day in politics, but all Conservatives standing for the second time on 14 June know that in the next five years a great deal of progress must be made towards more sensible use of the time of the European Parliament. My worry is over the gradual drift into a time schedule that often becomes chaotic. I wish that every Member of the European Parliament could see what happens at 2.29 pm in this Parliament and how its work is ordered and structured in a way that is sadly lacking in the European Parliament.
In my view, it will be for the Conservatives in the new European Parliament to give a lead. I had the great privilege of serving with the late Sir Peter Kirk and under the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), and I know the part that the Conservatives played in bringing about more structured debates, introducing Question Time and generally improving the quality of the European Parliament. I know, I hope and I expect that the Conservatives to be elected will follow the same line, because if positive steps are not taken within the next five years I greatly fear for the future.
Although it does not often surface, I believe that there is a genuine feeling for the European Community among the people of this country and an understanding that if we go back to basics there is a reason for it. I believe that the electorate of this country want an effective European voice which will be heard and play a full part in world affairs.
I believe that there is also an awareness that the brand of Europeanism now being peddled by the Labour party really constitutes a hatchet job to destroy not just Britain's membership of the Community but the Community itself. The antics of Mrs. Barbara Castle and her Left-wing friends in the Socialist group of the European Parliament in the past five years have made that plain. One would expect the Centre and Centre-Right to be aware of such antics, but time and again I have seen horror writ large on the faces of Members of the Socialist group itself as the Left-wing element of the British Labour group hammers away at the Community and our membership of it, doing a great disservice to this country in the process.
If added proof is required—and how carefully this has been fudged over—one needs only to look at the list of candidates put forward by the Labour party. Putting it charitably, we do not see the same kind of mainstream candidates. In one constituency after another we see the hard Left coming forward every time. [Interruption.] Labour Members may protest, but the evidence shows that middle-of-the-road Socialists who showed their support for the European Community and its ideals have been hounded out of the strongest Labour seats. Two of the best members of the European Parliament of any party—Derek Enright and Brian Key—are just two of those who have been pushed aside to make way for the hard men of the Left. A pretty good hatchet job was certainly done on putting in the boot for those two good men who now will not return to serve the cause of genuine Socialism in the European Parliament.
Let us now consider the role of the Liberals and the SDP. I am sorry that so few of them are present—only two, I believe, and only five Members on the Labour Benches.

Mr. George Foulkes: We have more Members on the Front Bench than the Government.

Mr. Spicer: I believe that the common sense of our electorate will enable them quickly to see through the naive and trusting approach of the SDP and its Liberal partners, who have now made it clear that they are prepared to accept the Community in toto, warts and all. The Liberals have made their position quite clear. First and foremost, they wish to throw away the veto. I cannot say that loudly enough or often enough. If the people of this country do not realise what that means in terms of the wellbeing of this country, God help them and us!

Mr. Penhaligon: The only matter of any substance on which the veto has been used so far was when the Prime Minister, in her various shenanigans to try to get back the money which she so miserably failed to obtain, forced the rest of the Community to use the veto against Britain to secure what proved to be quite a sensible price arrangement for agriculture. I presume that the hon. Gentleman therefore opposes that.

Mr. Spicer: Oh no. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is present, because he rightly takes a keen interest in agricultural matters. Had the discussions taken place in late March or early April without the threat of the veto, does the hon. Gentleman really believe that our Minister would have come back from Brussels with the retention of the beef premium and sheepmeat regime? It is easy to say, "Yes," but I am not so sure. Had the threat of that veto not existed, there would have been no beef premium or sheepmeat regime, and all of us, including those with dairy interests, would have suffered. Let there be no mistake that the alliance wants to see the end of the veto, whereas we Conservatives do not. We want to see its retention.
The Liberals and Social Democrats also want to give more power to the European Parliament to tax us. Their manifesto, which is in evidence in the Chamber, states:
The powers of the Parliament over expenditure of the Community should be extended to the revenue side.
What absolute drivel! This fledgling Parliament has been in existence for only five years. Time enough in 10 or 15 years, when it has proved its ability to deal with the present situation, to start talking about extending its powers.
The alliance manifesto also suggests that in the short term we should be happy with VAT as the revenue-raising arm of the Community, but that in the long term we should look for excise duty to go direct to the Community. I cannot wait for the hon. Member for Truro to go down to his part of the world, manifesto in hand, to tell his people, "End of the veto, more power and more revenue raising to the European Parliament." I cannot wait for the hon. Gentleman to go through the 48 or more points contained in the SDP manifesto.

Sir John Biggs-Davision: Is it not ironic that this document from the SDP-Liberal alliance should be covered in red, white and blue—our national colours—when within it are proposals utterly to abandon the sovereignty of Britain?

Mr. Spicer: I can only agree with my hon. Friend.
The alliance also wishes to increase the powers of the Commission. The Commission is a secretariat, and the power rests in the hands of the politicians rather than a secretariat, especially one that has not exactly covered itself with glory over the last 10 years.
Today has seen the launch of the Conservative manifesto for the European elections on 14 June. Within that manifesto is contained a genuine programme which is supportive of our membership of the European Community in every possible way. It does not support a continuation of the stalemate and drift which we have experienced for so long within the European Community.
That manifesto, and the support given to it by the Prime Minister and the Conservative party, points to the high road for Europe. Labour Members made it clear that they want to follow the low road, but we want to follow the high road. Of course we accept the imperfections, but we hold

fast to the concept of a community of nation states, and above all we support the Prime Minister's total commitment to a real community playing a major role in helping our unhappy world to resolve at least some of its problems. Within such a community there is a vital role for a strong British voice. We must therefore remain in Europe, and I therefore beg the House to support my motion.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When I was a member of the indirectly-elected European Parliament, I was one of those who was less than enchanted by the whole concept of direct elections, and indeed by what was then the Patijn committee report. At the time, my friend Schelto Patijn was unable to persuade my constituency party about the value of direct elections. I wish that we could put the clock back, because, as an unreconstructed pro-European, I think that there is a strong case for individuals from the Folketing, the Bundestag, the House of Commons and other Parliaments being members of a European Assembly or Parliament on a rotary basis.
As one who benefited from an enormously expensive education of being in a European Assembly or Parliament, I believe that the indirectly-elected Parliament had a great deal to be said for it. In my case, and in many others, it would have been improper had we spent longer than four years in that Parliament, given that we were sent by the House of Commons. It was, however, an enormously valuable experience for which I shall always be grateful. I should like it to have been extended to many of our colleagues on a rotary basis.
I am aware that CERN is not the direct concern of the European Community as such, but, in view of what our European partners are doing on the financing of particle physics, is there not a case for financing extremely expensive scientific collaboration out of a Foreign Office Vote rather than the science budget? The fact that we must now contribute more to CERN than was estimated because of revaluation—which is creating mayhem with the science Vote—means that there is an overwhelming argument for Britain doing as other countries have done. We should therefore consider paying our contribution and subscription to CERN at Geneva out of a Foreign Office Vote rather than making a mess of the science Vote, much to the upset of many colleagues in less expensive scientific areas.
Of direct relevance to the Community is the financing of JET. I have been to Culham, and a remarkable experience it is with its 57ft-wide concrete walls and so on. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) is interested in these matters, because he and I were members of the Energy Committee that fought so hard to have JET located in Britain rather than in Italy or at Garching in Germany. Are the Government satisfied with the way in which JET places its orders in the various countries of the Community? Should there not be greater ordering from British industry, which is capable of helping JET, as has happened in other European countries where institutions of a similar nature have been placed?
I am told that the British play much fairer cricket in relation to orders that go from JET to other members of the Community than they do when EEC institutions in their countries order in Britain. Therefore, I have asked a general question of some concern.
How do the Government view the progress of ESPRIT? There have been other debates, of a pending nature, in the House on that subject, but it is only fair, in a debate on the future of the Community, to ask for an assessment of how ESPRIT is going.
I realise that is a grey area, but I must ask the same question of the European Micro-Biology Organisation, of which Dr. Kendrew was the first director. Again, a good deal of Euro money is involved.
When talking about the future of the Community it is important to know whether the Government think that the British taxpayer's contribution is appropriate—[Interruption.] I do not know what the merriment is, but I am discussing important and concrete matters. I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cunmock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is so merry. Many hon. Members will probably talk about the CAP, but my remarks are meant constructively, even if some of my hon. Friends are not particularly interested.

Mr Foulkes: I am interested.

Mr. Dalyell: I apologise to my hon. Friend, as I must have misinterpreted the cause of his merriment. Nevertheless, these are issues that concern many people.
Finally, I return to the subject that the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) raised in his opening speech, to end user certificates, and to the Community's future in the supply of arms not only to South America but to other countries where they may, in certain circumstances, be used against the forces of member states. It is a very wide question, and I shall remind the House of the history behind it. In the Falklands conflict, there can be no doubt that, for all the protestations of the Heads of Government in France, Aerospatiale and Dassault went merrily on supplying the most lethal weapons of war.
Although a great song and dance was made about the fact that a team from Aerospatiale and Dassault did not go from Bourges to to Bahia Blanca in Argentina, we now know just what did happen. A seven-hour telephone call was made, during which it was possible for the Aerospatiale and Dassault engineers to explain to their colleague, Mr. Hervé Colin—the facts are very detailed and can be proven—how to marry an Exocet to the wing of an aircraft. Engineers can explain such things when talking to one another, and there can be no question whatever that the French armaments manufacturers went through the procedure in considerable detail, much to the detriment of HMS Sheffield, HMS Coventry, the Atlantic Conveyor, the Ardent, the Antelope and other ships. What sort of co-operation was it that allowed that to happen? That incident is just one reason why we and our European partners must look into the whole question of the mutual control of armaments.
I am not parading my views on the Falklands in this debate, but I should like to consider one other aspect that relates not to the past, but to the future. During the past year, and indeed this year, the formidable weapons manufacturers Blohm and Voss have been making four Meko 360 frigates, powered by Rolls-Royce engines, with David Brown gear boxes and Decca navigation equipment, made by us. Those are formidable weapons. If we do not do something to negotiate with the infant and vulnerable civilian Government in Argentina, they could—not next year, but the year after, or the year after that—be used against us, Heaven help us, in a replay of uncertain

outcome which would certainly involve more bloodshed. Given that Blohm and Voss are members of the Community, it must raise very serious questions if they go ahead and sell such weaponry as submarines to Argentina. It could be used against British forces. Those questions could be repeated over the sale of Oto—Melara mines—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) wish to intervene?

Mr. Robin Cook: I was agreeing with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalyell: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's agreement on such an important point. I do not wish to labour it, but regardless of views and of anybody's hobby horse, obsession or anything of that kind, it behoves us all, when talking about the future of the Community, to ask ourselves whether we should have some common policy on arms sales for end user certificates. I welcome the opportunity afforded by the hon. Member for Dorset, West to air that point. I could go on, but other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. George Gardiner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on raising this subject for debate today, which marks. at least for the major parties, the start of the campaign for elections to the European Parliament on 14 June.
Comment has already been made on the very sparse attendance of Opposition Members. I suppose that the Scottish National Party can claim to be very well represented, as one SNP Member is present. We note with interest that the alliance has managed to find just one hon. Member to contribute to the debate. However, I do not know what we are to make of the main Opposition party. I see that there are now four Labour Members in the Chamber, but throughout most of the speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) only three Labour Members were present. The fact that that has happened on the day when the Labour party has chosen to launch its European election manifesto is quite extraordinary. I can only conclude from the evidence that the Labour party wants to run a quiet low-key campaign. However, I very much hope that it fails in that objective.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does it not appear that the parliamentary Labour party now seems to be working a three-day week? Labour Members are never here on Mondays or Fridays.

Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point.
I said that I hoped that the Labour party's obvious endeavour to play down the whole thing would fail, for the simple reason that I believe it important that the issues involved in our membership of the EC should be discussed at regular intervals with, and before, the voters. There was very lively and deep public discussion in 1975, at the time of the referendum on Community membership. Of course, it resulted in a very convincing majority being recorded in favour of our continued membership. Since then, we have embarked on a pattern of regular elections to the European Parliament. Regardless of arguments over the precise merits of individual candidates—which are, of course very important—it is even more important that the British public should be involved, at periodic intervals—

Mr. Foulkes: The Tory Members are all leaving.

Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman may laugh at the fact that two of my hon. Friends are on their way out of the Chamber, but his energies would be better devoted to drumming up some Labour Members to attend the debate. [Interruption.] We shall have to see what he can to do to refill the Chamber when he speaks. So far, he has lamentably failed to fill it.
It is important to involve the British public in the argument about what kind of Community we want and are working towards. The majority of my hon. Friends regard the European Community as a community of nation states. I have never deviated from that view. We reject the federalist dreams held by some Members of the alliance and the dreams of those who look back to memories of an imperial past. We also reject the dreams of some of those who are so poorly represented in the Chamber today of a self-contained Socialist republic in Europe insulated from the realities of the world at large.
I make no apology for repeating what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West said about all of us being in the European Community because it is in our interests. My hon. Friend stressed that it is a vital British interest that we should be in the Community and participating fully in it. It is comparable to our need and interest as full participating members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
I see no conflict between a commitment to the cause of European co-operation and fighting our own corner in the Community whenever British interests are at stake. That consistently has been the philosophy adopted by our Prime Minister and Government.
I have never been in any doubt that our driving purpose within the European Community has been and remains to seek its reform. The European Community, even as envisaged in the Treaty of Rome, cannot be static. Many circumstances change in Europe and outside. We must adapt ourselves, and strengthen ourselves collectively, to deal with the changes. When the Community was established it was obvious to all the original participants that great advantages were to be gained from the creation of a single market free of internal tariff barriers. The value of that was demonstrated early in the Community's existence. Since we have been a member, we have demonstrated that advantage within our shores.
Given the changing patterns of trade in the world, and the new emerging industries and technologies, that argument has even more force. Our purpose is strengthened by seeking to extend the free trade concept and to remove non-tariff barriers within the Community.
How can anyone imagine that there would be any future for the sunrise industries—for electronics and information technology—if we were aside from the remainder of the Community or, indeed, if the whole of Western Europe were divided within itself? Our sunrise industries have to face competition from the vast markets of the United States and Japan.

Mr. Leighton: How do smaller countries such as Norway, Austria and Switzerland seem to do rather better than we do without being members of the Community?

Mr. Gardiner: I do not know by what test the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) claims that such countries "do rather better than" us. They do not stand a strong chance of attracting international investment

or even national investment while they are outside the Market, which provides a large home base for industrial and commercial activity.
Our continuing cause in Europe must be reform. We have heard at length and regularly in the House of our attempts to secure reform of the budgetary contributions mechanism. We have heard a great deal about attempts to secure reform of the common agricultural policy, which is painfully slow in coming. I shall not dwell on those matters today because so much time has already been devoted to them in the House and elsewhere.
However, other reforms are as important as those that I have mentioned, though they receive less public attention. I hope that the European election campaign, upon which we are embarking today, will redirect attention to the need for such reforms. We want not only a Common Market in terms of a Community without internal tariff barriers, but a genuinely and completely free trading community. We do not accept the need for delays that have occurred at frontiers over recent years. We do not accept that it is necessary to endure the mass and tangles of red tape involved in moving goods and sometimes people across frontiers in the Community. It is not acceptable that the invisible barriers erected by member states to restrict public purchasing to their own nationally-based firms should be continued. It is not acceptable that the movement of individual citizens across the countries of western Europe should remain as difficult and costly as it is
Industry in Britain still does not derive the full potential benefit from European Community membership that it has a right to demand. Our financial and commercial institutions are still not enjoying anything like the free market throughout Europe that they have a right to expect. British insurance, for example, must be freely available throughout the Community. Surely we have a right to demand that and we must work for it.
Individual citizens still have many additional benefits to gain from the Community beyond the employment prospects created for them by the availability of that large home market. I am glad to see the Government endeavouring to bring down air fares across western Europe. The present cartel arrangements should have no place in the European Community of 1984 and beyond.
Such reforms must rank high in our priorities. They should rank as high as budgetary reform and the continuing curtailment and control of CAP spending. I am glad to note that the Conservative party manifesto launched today makes a number of specific and important commitments in that direction. I hope that the reform campaign will gain impetus through the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament. A great deal has been achieved in western Europe and within the Community in recent years, but, heaven knows, there is still so much to be done.
I urge the Government to present with the fullest vigour their programme for furthering those reforms.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) was enthusiastic about the Common Market. However, as he developed his speech he made some caveats. It was interesting to note that those caveats were repeated on an even greater scale by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). As he said, heaven knows, there is so much still waiting to be changed or improved.
It is encouraging that both hon. Members strongly suggested that the EC is a community of nation states. It shows that both of them—and no doubt many of their hon. Friends—are beginning to realise that the United Kingdom's position would be difficult, to put it mildly, if we were merged into the one super-state that some of the more enthusiastic Community supporters were proposing a year or two ago.
As I have believed from the beginning, United Kingdom membership of the Community has resulted in an erosion of the sovereignty of this House. All the evidence shows that that has happened on a large scale.

Mr. Jim Spicer: The right hon. Gentleman says that a few years ago some hon. Members were advocating a closer federal state. Does he accept that at least two parties in the House are strong advocates of a federal Europe, with more power to the centre? Will he enlarge upon that and say which two parties are involved?

Mr. Stewart: I accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I should fight on more than one front at one time. I agree that a number of members of the SDP and Liberal parties—if not all—are enthusiastic advocates of a super-state. Unfortunately, those parties are led by Euro-fanatics whose enthusiasm is greater even than that of the hon. Member for Dorset, West. It would be disastrous to proceed down that road, and any suggestion that we should do so must be repudiated.
I do not wish to go into the details of what we have paid in and what we have received from the EC, despite all the fantastic forecasts about how good the benefits would be. A number of hon. Members threaten that if Britain withdraws from the EC the effects on employment would be disastrous. However, those threats are coming from the very same people who said that we had to become a member of the Community or our employment prospects would suffer. I cannot agree with their arguments, which they have failed to prove.
The hon. Member for Dorset, West said that membership of the EC would keep the peace. I strongly reject that argument. The position would have been no different if the EEC had not been formed. There are no grounds for believing that the Germans would have gone to war with their European neighbours during the years since 1945. In any case, the protection of Europe is a matter for NATO.
It has been claimed that the British people are still enthusiastic about the EEC, but I see not the slightest evidence to support that. In fact, the polls show clearly that the people are wholly disillusioned, that they have no enthusiasm for the Community and, indeed, that they never had any enthusiasm.
Membership of the EEC has resulted in interference in the rights of sovereign states. Hon. Members claim that we now have a common fisheries policy, and that that is a great advance. We have a 12-mile limit—although it is only six miles around my constituency. Two years ago, some Conservative Members were saying that if we did not get a 50-mile limit that would be a sell-out for Britain's fishermen. Yet now they are content with a 12-mile limit. If we were outside the EEC, we would have a 200-mile limit as of right under international law.
Reference has been made to the CAP. Everyone deplores that policy. Every hon. Member who speaks about the Common Market, however dedicated to it, says

that the CAP must be reformed. I have heard that said since Britain first entered the Community. When will the reform begin? It will never begin because the French will not allow that. The day reform begins, the French will be out of the EEC. I do not think that there is any prospect of real change in the CAP — a policy that has no relevance to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman said that all hon. Members deplore the CAP. With respect, that is not true. The CAP has ensured access to secure supplies of food. What we deplore is over-production and the waste involved in that. There is a need to control surpluses.

Mr. Stewart: I shall rephrase my comments. Everyone deplores the excesses of the CAP—but over-production is part of that policy. If we were outside the EEC, we could buy food far more cheaply than we can within the Community. The EEC is responsible for the higher cost of living for United Kingdom consumers. There can be no argument about that. I agree that that can vary year by year, but the whole thrust of my argument is that, while we have been a member of the EEC, we could have bought food in the world market far more cheaply than from within the EC.
The hon. Member for Dorset, West spoke about what has been done for the Third world. That has nothing to do with the EC. Even this stingy, cheese-paring Government are contributing to the Third world. We do not need the EEC to help us in our charitable aims if the Government have it in their heart to give help. Conservative Members should be concerned that while many countries are facing famine and the inhabitants of many nations do not know what it is to have full bellies, the EEC is responsible for over-production and the waste of food. It sells its surpluses to the Russians at give-away prices—goods that many of our old-age pensioners cannot afford to buy.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said that countries outside the EC, such as Norway, Sweden and Austria, are doing far better than Britain. The hon. Member for Reigate asked how that was measured. It is measured by unemployment. Unemployment in those countries is far lower than in the United Kingdom and many Common Market countries.

Mr. Foulkes: I do not disagree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but would he care to reconcile his criticism of the CAP and his attacks on the Community with what Mrs. Ewing, who is desperately fighting to remain as a Member of the European Parliament, said recently while I was with her on television? She strongly defended the CAP and said that Scotland was getting a great deal more out of the Community than it puts into it.

Mr. Stewart: I knew that the hon. Gentleman was waiting to get that one across because I heard what he said earlier. I did not hear the broadcast to which he refers, but I stand by everything that I have said, regardless of what anybody else is saying about the EEC and the CAP. The Labour party has enough internal problems without trying to stir them up in any other party. The hon. Gentleman might not have to move off the Front Bench to stir up trouble in his party, as there are only three Labour Members present. However, I might be prepared to stir up trouble in the Conservative party.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): This is an interesting


point. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, after the last general election, the Scottish National party and its leader changed their previous policy of withdrawal from the Community and now support Scotland, and the rest of the United Kingdom, remaining within the Community. Does the right hon. Gentleman now hold that view?

Mr. Stewart: We are all obliged to go by the policies of our parties. However, I was completely opposed to the EEC at its conception, I am still opposed, and I see no arguments that will make me change my mind.

Sir John Osborn: This is a valuable debate. The European scene has always had its parallel with a small urban community anywhere in Britain. It makes sense to have a working relationship with one's neighbours in the same street and the same area—in European terms with the countries such as France, Germany and Italy. We must also recognise that in small communities, particularly in Britain, there are children, cousins, nephews and nieces who have dispersed far and wide — in British terms to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. The feature there is that people born of different cultures have found a way of getting together much more readily than has been possible in Europe, because of its traditions. The impact of time and distance means that those who have left the home countries of Europe find their family links far stretched. Therefore, it is necessary to develop relations with neighbours in a different economic world from that which existed 50 to 100 years ago.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on the way in which he presented the motion. Some 40 years ago I was in the services and I remember the Normandy landings, because I obtained my commission about that time. Since then I have become a more convinced European, although I must confess that, as at times I find it a little difficult to get on with my neighbours in my community, so at times it is a little difficult to get on with one's neighbours in the European Economic Community.
This is an important day, because today the parties launch their manifestos for the European elections. I have been impressed by some of the advertisements saying that what has happened in the past—such as world war I in which my father fought—should not happen again. I was also impressed this weekend when I went round the bunker from which Churchill conducted world war 2. Only last week, on my way back from Strasbourg, I drove through battlefields which brought home to me how important it is that we should live with our neighbours in peace if at all possible. I accept that there are economic challenges from the United States of America and other challenges from the East, from the Soviet Union. It is necessary to meet these challenges, but I prefer to meet them working together with my neighbours, rather than in isolation.
I remember Churchill's Zurich speech, because I was demobbed at about that time. I remember the setting up of the Council of Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, for 10 or 12 years in industry

and then in politics, I have lived with the growth of these entities which are bringing the citizens of Europe together. In 1973 I joined the Council of Europe. From 1975, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West knows, we were in the European Parliament together until 1979. My background is that of energy policy, industry, regional and overseas development. I was able to see that working together on these issues meant that MEPs could identify targets and work together more effectively. Long may that continue in the European institutions, which I have spoken about.
After the Treaty of Rome and in the early 1960s, I visited Bonn and the other capitals of Europe, meeting the equivalents of the CBI, the chambers of commerce and other businesses, and working out, as a result of that initiative, how better the British people could work with their European neighbours. In the late 1970s my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West and I had long debates about what shape direct elections should take in Britain. If his idea of regional representation had worked, I might have been able to spend the last four or five years meeting the hon. Member for Linlithgow's point about doing the dual mandate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West has. However, as there is a constituency, or Euro constituency, basis for the elections in Great Britain, the dual mandate has been made almost impossible. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is necessary to develop a closer dialogue with the newly elected Members of the European Parliament because the role of a national Parliament is just like that of the separate states in the United States of America, and is all important.
As I go round the countries of Europe, I see that the forces of protectionism and nationalism are greater. That is all the more reason why I should back responsible representation from this country to the European Parliament, and not representation by those who want to pull it apart. I do not want to see a repetition of 1939.
Therefore, my view of the future must be based on the past. I had some sympathy with the concept of European confederalism, when it came to direct elections. There is no doubt that Members of the European Parliament became sensitive to the relationship of separate states to the Federal Government in Washington, or the central Government in Canada or Australia. The independent state Parliaments in these nations have a separate entity, and there is some parallel in the possible growth of Europe on a similar basis. However, people in European countries have a tradition of different languages, history and cultures, and to bring the peoples together rapidly is impossible.
The Council of Europe was created in the early 1950s and some countries are still in the European Free Trade Association. As a member of the Economics Committee of the Council of Europe, I still have regular dialogues with the EFTA countries. I have seen the Community grow from six to 10 in number and I hope that it will grow to 12 in a short period of time.
I hope to be visiting Switzerland, where I have many friends. Through the Council of Europe I frequently meet my opposite numbers in other Parliaments, for example those of Sweden and Austria. When Britain came into the Community, I gave the Council of Europe 25 years, perhaps, and the Western European Union 15 years. The Swiss hang on to their independence, but value dialogue with the Community, although the size of the Community


will increase. Therefore, Europe is a mixture of different institutions, but today we are talking about the future of the Common Market, which I want to grow stronger and to expand.
I could deal with many issues. The common agricultural policy has taken up far too much of the European budget. I welcome the positive initiatives by the Prime Minister. I regret the lack of an energy policy. When Britain first discovered North sea gas and oil and were not aware that Norway would have some, too many kept on saying, "It is our gas and our oil." I remember that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and his predecessor drove fellow European partners to look to Siberia and elsewhere for supplies, when they could have been encouraged to buy them in this country.
There is an amendment on own resources. The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to the work that has been done on energy policy at Culham. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to that when he winds up the debate. Those are costly ventures, in which it is much better to pool resources and work together. Culham, like CERN, is one such example, if the project is justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West referred to the market in the Community. I recently had talks with the CBI and others. Business men value the increased trade in the Community. About 2 million to 2·5 million jobs in this country depend on trade with the Common Market. Let us remember that it is better to trade with our neighbours. I have had experience of selling to "our" cousins who have gone to distant lands, and they have found ways, with better resources and raw materials, of making some of the things which I, for one, used to sell to them.
I welcome the debate and the initiative taken by the Conservative Government and Ministers to stay in Europe and make Europe work better for the members of the Community as well as residents in our own countries. Therefore, I shall support candidates with that point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, referred to Brian Key. Let us bear it in mind that my successor in Sheffield is now the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). He tried to help the Sheffield steel industry, while at the same time pulling down the Community. He created more enemies than friends. Hostility to the Community did my city a bad rather than a good turn. However, the hon. Gentleman was in the European Parliament at the time, when I was not, and he could better substantiate what I have said.
I shall support the Conservative candidate in my area, knowing full well that he and many other Conservative candidates will want to go on building a more powerful and better Europe so that the standards of living of all of us are raised.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Bar a few months, I have been a Member of the House for 10 years. I have listened, as all of us have done, even if not collectively, to the various debates on the European Community. There has been a common thread in those debates. The various posturings of the two Front Benches, are best summed up by the expression "moan, groan and whinge". For a decade the House has listened to the Front Benches compete to see who can be the most aggressive, awkward and demanding.
Two great ploys have dominated the issue since I have been in the House. There was a renegotiation while the

Labour party was in power, and now the Prime Minister is demanding our money back. I sometimes wonder which of those two ploys has been least successful—there have been successes in neither case. If anything, the Labour Government just had it in terms of lack of success.
The manifestos have all been issued. The other two parties have a slight advantage over me because they issued theirs today, so I have not had a chance to read them. We issued our manifesto a fortnight ago, so the other two parties have had a chance to read ours. I thought that bringing ours out early was a brilliant first strike, but I am beginning to reflect on that in depth. However, I shall leave that matter aside.
In effect, the European election campaign started today. I presume that that was part of the motive—although not dishonourable—of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) in tabling the motion for debate. He referred to my party's posture on Europe. I hope that what he said does not become the norm in the election campaign. If I said that his comments were not exactly near the truth, that would be an understatement. The hon. Gentleman said that we wished to abolish the veto. I have a copy of our manifesto, and if the hon. Gentleman would like one I could obtain one for him. It says:
The use of the veto in the Council must be severely restricted".
That is vastly different from saying that the veto should be abolished. The hon. Gentleman also said that we wanted to give vast new powers to the Commission. The document actually says:
The authority and accountability of the Commission must also be strengthened.
We can argue about the merits of the hon. Gentleman's posture and of our posture, but let us argue the case from where we are, not from where we should like to think the other organisation is in regard to the Common Market. When someone who claims to be pro-Common Market attacks, by distortion, another group that is pro-Common Market that is nearly unforgiveable. Those of us who are pro-Common Market have enough problems without such asinine and peculiar arguments being put forward in the House.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he should be so defensive about his party's policy? The problem with the alliance's policy is that I can walk into 50 Euro constituencies today and hear in each one a different voice on every subject from every Euro candidate representing the alliance. For example, is it official party policy to support the entry of Spain and Portugal into the Community? Only last week, the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), said that he did not support that. It is of vital importance to the future of our Community. The hon. Gentleman might say that we are carping and criticising when we talk about his party's policy and ask what it is, but where do we begin to have a proper debate in the election?

Mr. Penhaligon: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman sticks to interventions because he delivers them with much more aggression and conviction than his speeches. We all know that the alliance's official policy is that Spain and Portugal should be members of the Common Market. The hon. Gentleman said that he could walk into 50 different constituencies and find 50 different


policies. I assume that that means that 28 are in solid agreement, so that puts us in a stronger position than any other party.
The hon. Gentleman's third criticism was that we would like the European Parliament to be responsible for raising at least some of its own finance. I accept that that is a difference between us. I should like the European Parliament to be responsible for raising some of the money that it spends. If it did, the election on 14 June would be a more meaningful operation than it is. The people who were seeking a mandate from the electorate would be those who were asking for money to spend on projects. The election next month will not be satisfactory in many ways. We all know that candidates can put forward various schemes—with which we may or may not agree—but they are not the same people who are responsible for raising the funds. If there is disagreement, so be it; that is not something of which I am ashamed.
The most obvious issue facing Europe has hardly been touched on in the debate. Thirteen million people in the European Community are unemployed. There must be many countries in the United Nations with a population of fewer than 13 million. One thing that we have learnt in the past decade is that there is not now a European country with enough economic muscle to solve its unemployment problem in splendid isolation. The efforts of the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 manifestly did not work, and the efforts of M. Mitterrand in France have been no more successful.
However, a study of trading patterns within Europe clearly demonstrates that although—because of imports — each separate country is vulnerable if it goes for growth, Europe collectively is not as vulnerable. I regret the fact that the suggestion by the European Trade Union Confederation that European countries should aim for a modest 1 per cent. reflation was rejected out of hand. Such a policy within Europe could begin to help the 13 million unemployed.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman believes that only huge and powerful state organisations can provide full employment, why is there high unemployment in the Common Market and less than 3 per cent. unemployment in Austria, Norway and Sweden, which have not joined it?

Mr. Penhaligon: I do not recall saying that only powerful economies can maintain low unemployment. I said that there is not an economy in Europe that is currently strong enough to reflate within its own boundaries without being overrun by the automatic repercussions of reflation which are associated with our dependence on other countries in terms of imports and exports.
Those who are pro-Market and those who are antiMarket—and, indeed, everybody else—agree that the CAP needs reforming. So it does. However, it is worthwhile to reflect on how it came to be in such need. My view—I am not adamant about it, and would be willing to discuss it—is that the downfall of the CAP was caused not so much by the original concept as by the enormous effect of technology on agricultural production during the period of the implementation of the policy. The amount of corn or milk that can be produced on an acre or a hectare has increased massively. The CAP is under threat today not because of a failure of the original concept

but because it has been overwhelmed by its own success. However, whatever the causes may be, I accept that there is a need for substantial reform.

Mr. Robin Cook: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the problems of the CAP. If the problem is the massive increase in the amount of grain that can be grown on a piece of ground, why has there been no reduction in price? During the period of that massive increase, there has been a massive increase in the price of grain and the creation of massive surpluses that have to be paid for by the EEC taxpayer.

Mr. Penhaligon: I always like to hear the pure meat of the capitalist system from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, who have no faith in it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cause of the massive increase in the production of grain is that farmers have been farming against a constant price. They have not been farming in a free market. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the agricultural community of this country should re-enter a free market in grain?
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I are agreed that over the past few years we have not seen the gradual reduction in the grain price that manifestly should have taken place. I am talking not about a dramatic sea change — a reduction of 20 or 30 per cent. overnight— but about a gradual reduction in real terms. In the past two or three years a downward trend has been discernible, but it has not been of the substance that is required.
The Government would claim that they have made great progress in the reduction of the milk surplus within Europe. The milk surplus within Europe had become so large that something had to be done about it. I do not deny that, and I have never told my farming community in the far south-west anything else. However, I would not have expected the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to return to this House to try to justify a near-surrender. We could not have achieved a worse agreement on milk if we had corresponded by telex. Indeed, telexes might have been checked before being posted and might therefore have been somewhat more specific.
I cannot understand how the Government managed to agree that the British milk farmer must reduce his output by twice as much as the French milk farmer when, at best, we are more or less self-sufficient in milk production. That is beyond me. I have asked that question twice, and received the same answer on both occasions.
The Minister claims a triumph for his abilities to negotiate, on the ground that—I forget the exact words — he has persuaded the French to include within the European milk agreement off-farm sales from French farms and the milk produced by farms with fewer than nine cows. That is the remarkable achievement of which the Minister is so proud, and that is why we are reducing our milk figure by twice as much as the French. What sort of agreement would it have been if all the farms with fewer than nine cows had not been counted, and all the off-farm sales had been allowed? Reform of the CAP will not be achieved by surrender, and I tell the Minister of State that the Government have been precious close to surrender.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has left the Chamber, because he will not hear me say that one of the Community's great positive achievements has been in fishing. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is still here, I shall be careful about what I say.
The European Community has made significant progress towards a sensible fishing policy for Europe. The process has not been easy, and the Community's decisions so far have not been overwhelmingly popular. But progress has been made, and the House should welcome that progress if it wishes this country's fishing industry to prosper.
All the accusations levelled against the Community can be made with reference to fishing, and the fishing context demonstrates what nonsense most of them are. People talk about the sovereignty of this House and about holding and maintaining our own resources. The main fish in my region is, or used to be, the mackerel. During the past decade, the mackerel has been severely overfished. Most of the overfishing has been done by Scottish fishermen —not by fishermen from France, Belgium, Germany or any other Community country.
Those who try to argue the case for the sovereignty of this House refuse to recognise one point. Mackerel are delightful fish but they have one annoying trait. At the moment when they are born, they do not know whether they are French, Cornish, English or indeed German. They have a tendency to swim around. When small, they prefer the coast of France, and when larger they prefer the coast of Cornwall. It is obvious that my fishermen would prefer to have exclusive rights for the catching of adult mackerel. If that were the case, however, the French would say that if they are not allowed to catch any adult mackerel they will be forced to catch the tiddlers. Only a European Community that works together can begin to face such problems and get the agreements necessary to maintain stocks.
Enforcement of such a policy should be carried out to a far greater extent by the communities that are affected by it. Responsibility for enforcing fish conservation rules must be given to those who rely on the fish for their livelihoods. They are the only people who will demonstrate the necessary interest and determination.
The next month will be interesting. Right hon. and hon. Members know that we are occasionally pushed not to answer a question quite as clearly or concisely as the person asking the question desires. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I would deny that that happens, but we all know that questions are sometimes embarrassing. It will be fascinating to see whether the Labour party can fight the entire election campaign on detailed policy—we know how much research the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has put in—without answering whether the Labour party wants Britain to be a member of the Common Market. That is a key question. I see that the hon. Member for Livingston shakes his head — he obviously does not agree that that issue is key to the election.

Mr. Foulkes: It is just a twitch.

Mr. Penhaligon: Oh. The hon. Member for Livingston has merely developed a twitch so I withdraw my statement. Perhaps I was beginning to strike a nerve. If the Labour party manages to go for an entire month without answering that question, it might yet achieve office again. I hope that it will be screwed down and that people will ask that question repeatedly because without an answer all the detailed policy is so much bunkum and nonsense, and the hon. Member for Livingston is quite intelligent enough to know it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Everyone has congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on the dramatic timing of this import ant debate—just before these crucial elections. It is sad that only one Labour Back Bencher and not one Social Democratic Member is present. It is not just a case of the laziness of Opposition Members, as most of the general public would not notice much difference if the European Parliament or Assembly disappeared tomorrow.
The Labour party is in difficulties because it is having to argue for capitalism if it argues against the CAP, and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in difficulty, in arguing for the Common Market, in using arguments which are much the same as those adduced for the retention of the Greater London council. If they understand it, most voters will reject outright the Eurofanaticism of the Social Democratic-Liberal alliance. I believe that they will vote against Labour because the Labour party has admitted that it has not achieved anything in the Common Market through renegotiations. I believe that the public will be inclined to vote Conservative because we give the impression that we know something about these complicated issues and because the Prime Minister has undoubtedly achieved a great deal over the rebate.
In the election campaign I hope that all of us, especially alliance Members and even some of my hon. Friends, will stop kidding ourselves that success exists when it does not. For example, we have heard much about how the Common Market prevents Britain from going to war with Germany. Most of us realise that the peace of Europe is maintained, not by the French army or the German navy or the Italian air force, but by the NATO Alliance and America's nuclear umbrella. That is the key to our defence and I fear that it is being undermined by disputes between the EEC and the United States about, for example, food dumping. That might undermine the American commitment to Europe.

Sir Anthony Meyer (Clywd, North-West): My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Common Market has not prevented war with Germany, but he must be aware of the threat that could arise if Germany were not tied into a community in which it found some fulfilment. If it were not so tied in, it might seek an alliance with the Soviet Union to secure reunification, which might be the objective of any German Government. It is in that respect that the EC contributes to the unity of Europe.

Mr. Taylor: We are all hearing new ideas. I should have thought that West Germany's participation in NATO was greater security against that country trying to rejoin East Germany. I shall think about my hon. Friend's point, as is always the case with his most interesting arguments.
Foreign policy has been given as a major reason for the bonus that we have. I am always astonished at the utter lack of achievement in foreign policy. After the problem over Afghanistan I awaited with bated breath a common statement from the Common Market. When, after four days, it came out, it was less solid than that made the previous day by the Italian Communist party.
We should stop kidding ourselves about trade. We constantly hear of the great increase in and bonus of trade with the Common Market. It is obvious, however, that the erection of a protective tariff wall around a group of


nations will result in more trade within that group. We cannot avoid the simple fact that we always used to have a profit in trade in manufactured goods with the Common Market, but now have a horrendous loss of £8 billion. In a nutshell, for every £3 worth of goods that the Common Market sends us, we send it £2 worth.
Using similar calculations to those employed by the Foreign Office in regard to Japanese trade, our trade with the Common Market has meant a loss of about 800,000 jobs. I am not suggesting that the dramatic change has been caused by the Common Market's economic policies. Part of the reason is that we have become peripheral, and another is that ours is the only petrocurrency in a protected market. It is silly to argue that we have achieved a miracle in trade when in fact we have had a disaster. The sad fact is that our share of the EEC's market in manufactured goods is now less than it was before we joined. Whereas before we joined it was 6·3 per cent. it is now 6·1 per cent.
Nor should we kid ourselves about jobs. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends might have been interested to read in heavy and popular newspapers the dramatic story of firms such as Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd. and Hoover Ltd. which rushed to Britain when we joined the Common Market, and started to invest. Some of those firms have operated successfully in Britain since before the Boer war. We have had the sad story of steel. We have smashed our jobs and capacity, while others have made promises. We should stop the Eurononsense about, for example, investment. How many times have we read that amazing statement that 40 per cent. of Japan's investment in Europe comes to Britain? In fact, it does not. In 1980 the figure was 40 per cent. but we are not told that it was 80 per cent. in the year that we joined and that it is now just 12 per cent. There is a danger of our misleading ourselves about basic facts.
We are also misleading ourselves about the CAP. We talk about how we can reform the policy, but we know that at the Stuttgart conference everyone agreed that we would not even try to reform it; all that we will seek are modifications and adjustments. Alliance Members talk about wanting to reform the CAP, but I wish that they would tell us how they intend to do it. The plain fact is that, post-Stuttgart, there will be no reform, but merely modifications and adjustments.
We should also stop kidding ourselves about the EEC being a force for free trade. As a small trading nation, like Japan, we want free trade. I often wonder whether those who support the EEC think that it would help Japan to form a common market with China. We see the trade barriers evading the GATT and coming round through the back door. For example, we have made ridiculous agreements with Japan on curbing imports. We have said to the Japanese, "Please send us only the same number of videos as last year, but you must charge us at least £50 more for them." We repeatedly see the introduction of health and safety regulations which have no purpose other than keeping out Third world trade.
I wish that we would stop kidding ourselves and admit the simple fact that our experience since joining the Common Market has been a disappointment. We cannot blame the Common Market, because we cannot know what would have happened if we had stayed out, but we

know that the ridiculous forecasts made by hon. Members of all parties that we would have more jobs, higher pensions and more investment have proved false.
I make an appeal for the future. No matter what we do about the Common Market and the CAP—and I very much doubt whether the policy will be reformed — I hope that we can all agree that we should stop dumping food on the world market. We make fun of some of the things that happen. The amount of food sent to the Soviet Union has soared since this Government came to power —up by 600 per cent. We send 146,000 tonnes of food to the Eastern bloc every week. We sell them wine at 7p a litre, butter at 53p a pound, flour at 5p a pound, sugar at 5p a pound and beef at 40p a pound.
I had lunch today with some Southend butchers, who said that they found it difficult to sell beef at £2·50 a pound because demand was going down. I am sure that demand would soar if we allowed our people to get the beef at the same price as the Russians. However, that is a minor issue.
If we care about the Third world—and we have all been handing round envelopes for Christian Aid to show our desire to help the Third world—we must abandon the policy of food dumping, which is causing distress, hardship, famine, hunger and death in the Third world. We are dumping food at knock-down prices while poor countries are struggling to get a decent price for their own food.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Last week was Christian Aid week, and we are all mindful of the damaging impact of the CAP on Third world economies. My hon. Friend is making a powerful analysis of Britain's position and the success or otherwise of the CAP and the Common Market. Can he explain why the problems are not perceived by the Government and why, certainly since 1979, we have not pursued some of the initiatives that he is outlining?
Has the long retreat into Europe vitiated British national policy? Rather than discussing how we came to be where we are, will my hon. Friend tell us how he sees the way out?

Mr. Taylor: I shall try to do that. There has been a strange parting of the ways, with the parties ending up on the wrong sides. Perhaps that explains the low attendance for the debate.
If I were a Socialist, I should fight tooth and nail for everything that the Common Market stands for, with its grand policies for European investment, boosting jobs and spending money all over the place on new bridges, tunnels and goodness knows what else. I can never understand why a true Socialist does not support all that. In the same way, I see a problem for Conservatives. We have ended up on the wrong side, as we did over devolution, and it will be some time before we get back into the proper frame of mind. When we do, everyone will be much happier and the Benches will be full again because we shall not be so embarrassed.
I believe passionately, and I hope that I shall have the agreement of even the most ardent supporter of CAP, that if we want our farms to produce far more food than we can consume and to pay them prices far higher than those on the world market, we can arrange that — that is our business—but we must stop kidding the economies of the Third world. If we have surpluses, by all means get rid of them by other means—we destroy cauliflowers—but


we must not dump them on the world market at knockdown prices, because that is doing appalling damage to some of the poorest countries.
Could we not question whether we need all the ridiculous public expenditure involved in the Common Market's social fund, regional fund and the like? Surely there is no purpose in the Common Market undertaking such activity. Conservatives rightly question public expenditure and whether we should intervene for social reasons to spend public money. I do not understand why we should want to spend more on the Common Market, bearing in mind that every £1 that we get from the various funds costs us about £1·70. Even if we made a profit on them, why should we favour cutting public expenditure at home and extending it abroad?
I hope that we shall watch out for the danger of creating more CAPs. I appreciate, as I hope all realists appreciate, that it will be terribly difficult to get anything done about the CAP, because we need unanimous agreement to do anything about any policy. Somehow, we shall have to find ways of paying farmers for doing nothing, because that would appear to be a more effective way of dealing with the problem of surpluses.
However, whatever we do about that, surely we can all agree on the need to stop new CAPs. For example, we could solve the problems of the shipbuilding industry tomorrow by buying tankers at three times the current price, guaranteeing to take them all and deciding that if we cannot use them we will dump them in Hong Kong, Portugal or elsewhere. I am sure that there would be a rush of investment and jobs into shipbuilding, with small shipyards springing up all over the country and doing well. It would be nonsense and it would not be Conservatism, but it would reduce imports and create employment.
I fear that we are about to create another CAP in steel. I had the pleasure recently of going to see that remarkable chap Viscount Davignon, who speaks English very well and understands the problems of the steel industry. Apparently, he aims to stop all subsidies for the steel industry in Europe by the end of next year, so that we shall all be free to go our own way and compete in a free market. But if we achieve that aim, which we will not, it will not be a free market, because we will stop steel coming in from outside unless it is sold at the guide price. In other words, the countries of Europe will have a high-priced input into their manufactured goods and, because of surpluses, we shall eventually have to provide export rebates so that the steel can be dumped abroad. I am sure that Ministers and the Department of Trade and Industry will say that they do not want that to happen. but how can we avoid it if we are to have the protection that is planned within the guide price?
I believe that those who vote in the European elections will be inclined to vote Conservative. They will be right to do so, because we have achieved something, which others have not. However, on the more dramatic negotiations taking place between Prime Ministers, who are hoping to seek reforms, I hope that if it appears that there will be no agreement—as opposed to agreement being postponed until after the elections — I wonder whether my party and the Government will consider as a fall-back position the possibility of our rejoining EFTA. I can see enormous benefits flowing from that and very few losses.
Some may ask why the Common Market should give us the benefit of free trade in manufactures if we do not

take on the burdens of contributing to the CAP and so on. If all the trade in Europe stopped tomorrow, Britain would not be the net loser because of the horrendous £8 billion deficit. At the end of the day such an arrangement would work out to our advantage. It would at least be a tolerable and useful fall-back position if the current negotiations on reform do not succeed.
I hope that we shall consider some of the real issues during the election campaign for the European Assembly. Having heard the dramatic, good and important speeches that have featured in the debate, I think that we shall have time for reflection. It seems that quite a few hon. Members are rather confused.

Mr. Robin Cook: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer)—I do not know whether I should refer to him as the hon. Member for Wessex as I am not quite sure in which capacity he wishes to be recognised—on having initiated the debate. When I read the Order Paper, I thought that I should begin by congratulating him on having arranged the debate. It was not immediately apparent to me on reading the Order Paper that from the Treasury Bench a Minister would congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having arranged the debate. It must be a historic occasion when an election campaign opens with the Government publishing their manifesto in the morning, only to find during an afternoon debate in the House that their Back Benchers are deeply divided over one of the major issues that the nation will be debating during the election campaign.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dorset, West on having made a much better case for the European Community than is made out in the national advertisements in the name of the Conservative party. I, too, saw the advertisement to which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred. I was astonished to read a full page advertisement which opened with the statement that the 120 companies thereafter set out
came here to be part of the world's largest trading market.
Listed among the 120 companies are Hoover, Ford and Standard Telephones, which came here in 1919, 1921 and 1883, respectively. I read that one of the managers of Standard Telephones has written what he describes as "a snorter of a letter", to the chairman of the Conservative party complaining about his company being described as an "overseas company", after recently celebrating its centenary in Britain, and demanding a retraction. If the Government are inclined to publish a retraction in the nation's press and to pay for it, the rest of us will be well able to provide a long list of other examples of misleading Conservative propaganda which should also be covered by a general retraction in the nation's press.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dorset, West on one other aspect of the debate which he brought out fully and clearly and which was confirmed by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). The hon. Member for Truro explained that if the alliance were successful in forming a majority in this place, or in Europe, this type of debate would no longer take place. Apparently it would be impossible for hon. Members to table an amendment of the sort that has been appended to the motion.
It is clear from the alliance's manifesto, as confirmed by the hon. Member for Truro, that decisions on own resources would be removed from the House and transferred to Strasbourg. That would apply to VAT


decisions, about which the hon. Member for Truro was equally candid, and decisions on excise duties. The hon. Member for Truro and I have both served on Finance Bill Committees, and I have listened to a number of his speeches about sensitivity over higher petrol prices in rural areas such as Truro. I suggest that, before pressing further forward with the alliance's policy, he should take a straw sample of his constituents on how enthusiastic they might be about petrol duty being resolved in Strasbourg.
I have had to listen to a number of lectures from Liberal spokesmen and candidates on how Liberal philosophy causes them to seek to bring decision-making and power nearer to the people. I cannot imagine a more dramatic way of taking power further away from the people than transferring decisions that have an immediate effect on household expenditure to Strasbourg, outwith even the influence of the British Government.
The opening paragraph of the alliance's manifesto could have been written only by the alliance. I think that I carry others with me when I say that no other party represented in the Chamber would have the insufferable and smug arrogance to open its manifesto by stating that it is much more informed than other parties. That sentence has the characteristic ring of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). One day that ineffable conceit will be his downfall.

Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Gentleman has taken what might be described as one inch from my remarks and extended it to about 10 miles. He has done so without any real justification. The basis of his remarks about me was his claim that we have served as members of Finance Bill Committees. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have managed to demonstrate good sense by avoiding serving on such Committees.

Mr. Cook: I am happy to accept that correction for the record. However, I remember hearing speeches from the hon. Gentleman on petrol duty. Presumably he delivered them in Committee on the Floor of the House or on Report as previous Finance Bills have passed through the House. However, I cannot accept what he says in defence of the alliance's manifesto.
It is clear from page 25 of the manifesto that the alliance believes that
the powers of the Parliament … should be extended to the revenue side.
It is clear, in page 15, that it believes that the revenue side of the budget should be extended to include issues such as excise duties.
There has been no collusion between the hon. Member for Dorset, West and myself. On an objective reading of the alliance's manifesto we have come independently to precisely the same conclusions. They are the only conclusions that any independent, impartial and objective observer can reach on reading the alliance's manifesto. It is clear that the alliance means to give excise duty powers, including petrol duty, to the European Parliament, to be resolved in Strasbourg, not in the House.
Having gone so far with the hon. Member for Dorset, West, I am sure that I have created some anxiety on his part that I would go with him the whole way and therefore damage his reputation in the House. I must now, regrettably, leave the path of the hon. Gentleman. The motion invites us to applaud

the strong voice in Europe
of the present Government. The hon. Gentleman may not have been present for all our debates on Europe over the past three or four months. If he had been, he would be aware that on the two issues that the Government have isolated as the major issues for debate in the negotiations between Britain and the rest of the EC, they have failed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have had a strident voice in Europe, but, as we have failed to achieve any of our major negotiating objectives, we cannot be said to have a "strong voice". As this may be the last debate on European issues before 14 June, I shall try for the last time, before the European elections, to draw from the Minister answers to the questions that we have been putting to him and his ministerial colleagues for the past two months.
It is clear that the hon. Member for Dorset, West wants to clear the decks on the British budget rebate. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who would wish to see that happen. When will the decks be cleared? When do the Government expect to be paid the rebate for 1983? I am bound to say that discussion on the matter has reduced to vanishing point. When the last but one meeting of Foreign Ministers Council took place, we were treated to reports in the press that discussion of Britain's rebate had lasted between 20 minutes and an hour. When I pressed the Foreign Secretary to say how long the discussions had continued, he admitted that it was somewhere about the mid point of the two estimates.
The most recent meeting of the Foreign Ministers Council took place last week, but there was no statement following it. However, I was sent a courteous letter by the Foreign Secretary in which he indicated that there was no statement because the substance of the discussions was
a little less substantial than usual".
From that I divined that there was not even 20 minutes of discussion of the British budget rebate.
I am sorry to have to say to the hon. Member for Dorset, West that progress on the budget rebate must be one of the tests to determine whether the Government have a strong voice in Europe. It is the issue on which they chose to make their voice heard.
I have with me a splendid example of that strident voice —a transcript of the interview that the Prime Minister gave on ITN on 4 January. Sir Alastair Burnet asked her about the rebate for 1983, and she replied that if they default,
then we will have to, in the famous phrase, and I think they all know exactly what it means, but some things are a little bit wrapped up—that we shall have to take steps to safeguard our position.

SIR ALASTAIR: That means you will take steps?

MRS. THATCHER: Oh indeed yes, we need the money. It's ours, it's due to us. It's promised.
That is the authentic and characteristic strong voice of the Government in Europe. Five months have passed since that interview, and two months have passed since the deadline set by the Prime Minister in that interview. The House is entitled to ask what steps are being taken to secure payment of that rebate. The Prime Minister said then that the other countries in Europe knew exactly what was meant by the phrase,
we shall have to take steps to safeguard our position.
Since no steps have been taken, will the Minister tell the House, when he replies, precisely what the phrase meant and what steps may be proposed in future to lend strong weight to that strident voice?
The other issue on which we must judge the Government's strength—they chose it—is how far they have achieved effective control over expenditure in Europe. They have been so unsuccessful in doing that that this year the European budget will be overspent by £1·5 billion.
It is instructive to note how the largest part of that over-expenditure in agriculture arises, because it goes to the heart of the lunacy of the common agricultural policy. Expenditure on agriculture this year will rise because world food prices are falling. Because world food prices are falling, it will be more expensive than before to provide subsidies to the exporters of food from Europe. Any advantage from falling world food prices should be transferred to the consumer. However, the consumer will not be given that advantage, and instead the taxpayer will pay for increased subsidies. The European Commission must be the only body in the world which is hoping for world food prices to rise during the year.
The Minister has hitherto taken the view that that over-expenditure need not require further finance and can be met by savings. I ask for the fourth time in four months: Where will these savings be made? Today I saw a letter from the office of Piet Dankerts, the President of the European Parliament, in which it is stated that the Council of Ministers has requested savings of £500 milion in nonagricultural expenditure. Will the Minister tell the House whether that is true? If it is, that sum will just about wipe out the entire expenditure of the social fund or the regional fund. Are the Government prepared to see those funds become victims to the juggernaut of agricultural expenditure? If not, how do they see the Commission muddling through this year when it has already such an overspent budget?
Finally, I urge the Minister to answer the pointed questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). If the Community is edging towards a common foreign policy, it must mean — if it means anything—that when the Government are garrisoning the Falklands the Germans should not be supplying submarines to the Argentines for potential use against ships supplying that garrison.

Mr. Dalyell: Two submarines have been built by Blohm and Voss, and six more are under licence from Blohm and Voss in Argentina. That amplifies the nature of my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because it reinforces the importance of his question.
The hon. Member for Truro, before his departure, treated us to another rendition of his mackerel speech. If I understand him correctly, he said that the House was treated to whining and whingeing speeches from both Dispatch Boxes, claiming each would have been more aggressive in negotiation. He then proceeded to whine and whinge about the milk settlement and suggested that an alliance Government would have negotiated that more aggressively. I put it to him — I hope that his hon. Friends will convey this to him — and to other hon. Members who made this point, that it is not sufficient to inveigh against the excesses of the CAP. We all know that there are excesses. The hon. Member for Southend, East did a service to the nation by highlighting the extent to which we supply cheap food to the Soviet Union and its

satellite states. It causes great offence to European consumers, who are denied food at reasonable prices, that that food should be available at cheap prices to other nations' consumers.
There are many further examples. I noted last week that the expenditure on the milk fund is so enormous that a French headmaster is on a charge of fraud for having obtained a subsidy on milk supplied to 40,000 children who did not exist. No sane hon. Member will attempt to defend such excesses.
These excesses are not peripheral. They arise from the basic lunacy of the CAP. The system needs radical reform. If one adopts the price mechanism as a means of supplying income to small farmers, one will inevitably be driven to a high price settlement which provides a killing for large farmers, who in turn have an incentive to produce grotesque surpluses, which in turn require extraordinary expenditure to maintain and then to dump. Hon. Members must never forget that the bulk of the CAP expenditure benefits not the farmer, but goes to managing and disposing of the surpluses called forth by the high prices that the consumer must pay.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are spending only one fifth as much on agricultural support this year as we did in 1960? In 1960, at today's prices, we spent over £1,800 million. This year we are spending £599 million. In 1960 that represented 1·01 of GDP; this year it represents 0·2 per cent. of the GDP.

Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. It is possible for him to make it only because, when we joined the CAP, it transferred the cost of subsidising farmers from explicit payments by the taxpayer to hidden subsidies from the consumer through high prices. The hon. Gentleman should examine the authoritative study on this point by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. It takes account of the hidden subsidies and the tax payments, and concludes that the CAP cost the British nation an additional £4,000 million a year to provide a total subsidy to the farming community of only £2,000 million a year.
If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt about the nonsense that flows from the basic structure of the CAP, he should consider last week's decision of the Council of Ministers to increase even further the price of Mediterranean fruit and vegetables as a result of negotiations with Spain and Portugal. That was because Spain and Portugal, which are about to become members of the Community, produce cheap fruit and vegetables. If the consumer were to gain an advantage from the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community, it should be to gain access to those sources of cheap fruit and vegetables. Not only will the consumer be cheated of that access to cheap fruit and vegetables, but every country's Mediterranean fruit and vegetables will go through a price hike.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting and powerful criticisms of the CAP. What I always want to hear when he speaks on this subject is what the Labour party would replace it with. Does it wish there to be no CAP within a European Community, of which it wishes to remain a member, or, if it wishes to replace it, what agricultural policy will it put to the electorate on 14 June?

Mr. Cook: The position that we have taken—the Minister knows this because we have discussed it several times—is that the time has come to shift the subsidy to the farmer from the consumer on to the taxpayer. We should return to the system of direct payments to the farmer that existed in Britain before 1972. If we cannot obtain that on a Common Market basis, we are prepared to contemplate having a British agricultural policy, which may be no bad thing. If the French wish to continue to maintain 2 million peasants on the land producing food uneconomically, that is a perfectly proper and legitimate social decision for the French to take; but there is no reason why they should expect the British consumer to pay for that policy through his or her bread basket.
It is not only the Labour party that puts forward such a proposal. Several hon. Members referred to the manifestos produced by the parties. One of the most stimulating manifestos produced so far is that of the Consumers in the European Communities group, which produced a valuable manifesto calling for a freeze on the prices of commodities in surplus, saying that no more commodities should be brought into the intervention system, and that the consumer should be given access to the world market for food. Those reforms are long overdue, as is the voice of the consumer in the debate on the CAP. It is high time that, as well as an agricultural policy, we sought to create a food policy that is fair to the consumer as well as to the farmer.
I was struck by the extent to which we have managed to debate this matter for the past two and half hours with very little reference to the economic problems that face Europe. It is an extraordinary indictment of the priorities of the Community that the Prime Ministers of the European nations have met in summit three times without once producing a proposal for the economic regeneration of Europe. There is an almost comic absurdity about the contrast between the bureaucrats in the Berlemont spewing out more directives and regulations to achieve greater transparency of the market and to ensure a free market of goods across Europe, and at the same time in each domestic capital of Europe the Governments of each nation carrying through policies of deflation deliberately designed to suppress imports from each other within that free market.
Mercifully, a growing number of voices has been raised against the waste of the lost output from those policies, which represent a forgone income greatly outweighing the short change in the budget which so much concerns the Government. In Brussels last week the Centre for European Policy Studies said that the forecast growth rates for Europe would not cut unemployment, and demanded that the Governments of Europe should carry through a stimulus to their economies to achieve faster growth for a period to reduce that unemployment. The European Trade Union Confederation met last month in Strasbourg. In its report, which was adopted at that meeting, it said that a 1 per cent. expansion in public investment by European Governments would stimulate a 3 per cent. growth in output across Europe. I should not expect the Minister to be aware of that conclusion, because the British Government were the only Government in Europe who were not represented at ministerial level at that meeting, thus showing their complete indifference to any attempt seriously to debate ways in which European countries could work together to pull themselves out of the slump.
The evidence of this morning's manifestos is that in Britain only the Labour party points the way out of the slump by demanding a co-ordinated reflation across Europe. A decade ago there were fewer than 2 million unemployed in Europe. There are now more than 13 million. If the Government could bring themselves to be honest about unemployment in Britain, registered unemployment in Europe would be not 13 million, but 14 million. The Labour party will take pride in putting the plight of those unemployed at the centre of its coming campaign, and it will urge Europe to face the prime economic challenge of our time. It will also take pleasure in exposing the abject failure of the Government and their indifference to any attempt to harness the institutions of Europe in a co-operative programme to create the jobs that Europe needs.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has gone on record as saying that he is worried that it might not be possible for the Labour party to persuade Labour voters to vote in the European elections on 14 June. Since the Labour Front Bench spokesmen have been able to persuade only two hon. Members of the parliamentary Labour party to attend this debate, it is an interesting example of the apathy, lack of interest and hostility of the entire Labour party and its supporters to the European Community.
I happily agree with the first comments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on his choice of subject and on the way in which he moved the motion. My hon. Friend is a distinguished member of the European Parliament and he and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) both said that the origins of the Community are to be found in the trauma of the two world wars of this century and the determination of many to avoid another such conflict.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and Opposition Members disputed the strength of the Community, but I remind them of the history of the Community. It was created by bringing together the steel and coal industries of some countries because they were identified by the founding fathers as the strategic industries of Europe. It was thought that if they could be brought under common control conflict among the countries of western Europe would become impossible. If, as some of my hon. Friends said, the main risk of conflict in Europe is now between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries, that in itself shows what benefits the EC and other such developments have achieved. Conflict in western Europe has become unthinkable, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West said, the Community can take credit for that.
Once again, this debate has been significant for the fact that the Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government, who is now the leader of the SDP, made no attempt to speak or to give us the benefit of his experience. However, we have heard his views on another platform. Last week he and the leader of the Liberal party announced to the waiting public the contents of their election manifesto.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) attacked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and suggested that her negotiating style had somehow


damaged Britain's interests and had been the most important factor in preventing a successful outcome to the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman should have been a little more cautious in his remarks, because he has a track record in this matter. After all, he was Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government who signally failed to make any progress either in financial matters or in any other aspect of the reform of the Community and who, despite tortuous renegotiation, did not obtain a single ecu of rebate for the British taxpayer.
Not only is the right hon. Member for Devonport a former failed Labour Foreign Secretary; he is a member of an alliance which has already said that it would have accepted what was on offer at the Brussels summit. If that is an example of his firm negotiating skill, it will not impress either the House or the country.
I remind the House of the remarks of Leo Tindemans, the Belgian Foreign Minister, recently on BBC radio, when he said that, in his view, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the finest negotiator he had ever come across.

Mr. Foulkes: From his point of view.

Mr. Rifkind: No. In his view, she was the finest negotiator he had ever met, and he believed that the significant progress made by the United Kingdom in securing its objectives was largely due to her negotiating skills. There is solid evidence for that.

Mr. Foulkes: Where is the money?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Where is the money?" Approximately £2 billion has already gone to the British taxpayer. They are the rebates to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. In addition, the Community accepts—it was not even considered some years ago—that the future burden of financing Community expenditure must take into account the relative prosperity of member states. That has been the cardinal objective of successive British Governments. The previous Labour Government failed to obtain acceptance of that principle. It is now accepted unanimously by all member states. I do not believe that anyone could seriously suggest that that would have been achieved without the negotiating patience and skill of the present Conservative Government.
In addition, we are seeing progress on the control of agricultural expenditure. Hon. Members are entitled to say that much remains to be done before control of agricultural expenditure will meet our requirements, but it is absurd to suggest that the attitude of the Community and of other member states to agricultural expenditure has not undergone a dramatic transformation over the past two or three years.
One of the principles that is now accepted by the Community, which was not previously accepted, is that revenue must determine expenditure, and not the other way round. That is a new development, and one that we can properly recognise.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will that principle be observed during the coming year?

Mr. Rifkind: It is because the previous arrangements to control agricultural expenditure were not and are not

working that we have insisted that as part of the post-Stuttgart negotiations a new system of control must be written into the Community's budget procedures. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman enabled me to say that.
I am well aware that the Community's existing policies have not brought controlled agricultural expenditure. The problem was described to me graphically and effectively as being similar to the remark Errol Flynn made about the problems of his own life, when he said he had always found that his difficulty was to reconcile net income with gross habits. That accurately reflects the problems facing the Community in recent years. However, I believe that the form of discipline which is now accepted by all member states is relevant to the Community's operations and represents significant and welcome progress.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: We still do not know what agriculture will cost at the end of this year, next year or any year. It is still not controlled by the amount that we raise. It determines what we spend. Is that not the criticism of the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to that point as being the main objective of the present negotiations. It is now accepted that the Finance Ministers must be involved in the determination of agricultural expenditure and that when sums for agricultural expenditure have been determined the Community must achieve proper budgetary procedures to ensure that expenditure comes within those limits.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Finance Ministers, who will determine this global sum, will not be operating under a majority agreement, but that countries, such as Britain, which feel strongly about controlling money will have the veto? That is the key point which my right hon. Friend might like to have. Under this new system and discipline, surely there will be no question of majority voting on the global sum.

Mr. Rikfind: The draft conclusions of the previous summit negotiations pointed in the direction that my hon. Friend and I would wish to see—that there should be effective control of agricultural expenditure, and the member states are studying the various detailed budget procedures that will bring about such a desired result. That is our objective, as I am sure it is my hon. Friend's objective.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Not a majority vote.

Mr. Rifkind: That is under consideration, so that we have effective budget procedures. My hon. Friend knows that the Government's cardinal objective is to bring agricultural expenditure under control. That has always been one of our objectives, and we should not accept a settlement to the negotiations that did not meet our requirement.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that British companies were not receiving a fair deal under the award of contracts arising from the JET project. I am not sure from where he gets his information, but he could not be more wrong. United Kingdom firms have, up to 13 April, won over 45 per cent. of all contracts. In contrast, West German industry has won 25 per cent., France 8·5 per cent. and Italy 8 per cent. I am sure that that will be of great pleasure to the hon. Gentleman. He also asked about the financing of CERN. If one has a Department of Education and Science, it is


logical for the financing of such scientific matters to be determined under the budget of that Department and no other.

Mr. Dalyell: I asked about arms control.

Mr. Rifkind: I am trying to limit my comments to specific matters that arise out of the European Community. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not feel that that matter does. I know that he will find plenty of opportunities to pursue his interest.
The main problem that remains to be bridged in the Community negotiations is the gap in the British budget refund. We believe that, with flexibility throughout the Community, it should be possible for the gap to be bridged. Naturally, we should like to see a solution as early as possible, but I emphasise that if we have to wait a little longer to achieve an acceptable solution, that is something we are prepared to do. We are prepared to wait as long as may be necessary to ensure that the budget arrangements are fair to the people of the United Kingdom and to the European Community.
The policies of Her Majesty's Government are well understood, but a deep sense of confusion is felt by the British public about the policies and attitude of the Labour party. That is not surprising, because if we consider the Labour party's history on this subject, we realise that it is an extraordinary history of changed policies and confused positions.
From 1961 to 1966 the Labour party was hostile to Community membership. When the Labour Government served the country until 1970, they inquired into the prospects of Community membership. From 1970 to 1974 the Labour party was again hostile to Community membership. Between 1974 and 1979 we saw an extraordinary bout of internecine civil war, with members of the Labour Cabinet speaking and voting against one another during and after the referendum campaign. During the last election the Labour party came out hostile to membership, in a most uncontrolled fashion. Since then we have seen a further attempt to fudge the issue.
One is entitled to say now that the Labour party is as committed to the Europan Community as the Soviet Union is to participation in the Los Angeles Olympics. For its own internal purposes the Labour party has achieved a fudged cosmetic formula whereby the vast majority of its members who remain hostile to Community membership have agreed that withdrawal should not be insisted upon, in exchange for a commitment by the Labour leadership that it will make no serious reference to the detailed consequences of Community membership during its European negotiations and campaigning.
If the hon. Member for Livingston disagrees with me, we have the remark by the Leader of the Opposition in his article in New Socialist on a "New Messina", where he said that the Labour party would fight the European elections—

Mr. Foulkes: He wrote it last month.

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I know, and it was a good work. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Labour party would fight the European elections
but demand fundamental reforms in the Community. If they could not be achieved, we would reserve the right, like any other nation, to withdraw.

Having put those unnegotiable objectives before the country, I remind the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) what the deputy leader of the Labour party said—

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman told us last month.

Mr. Rifkind: No, I said last month what the deputy leader said in the Financial Times. I am now going to remind the hon. Gentleman of what the deputy leader said in The Guardian, which is a much more agreeable newspaper for the hon. Gentleman. On 8 August 1983 the deputy leader of the Opposition said:
A threat that we will really leave the Common Market if we do not recreate it in our own image is a disastrous foundation on which to build our European election platform".
Yet that is precisely the basis on which the Labour party is now campaigning.
The hon. Member for Livingston sought to suggest that the Labour party intended to fight the European election on the basis of policies relevant to the European Community. In this context, I read with great interest a supplement to the latest issue of the New Statesman, produced by the Labour party and headed:
Four reasons for voting Labour in the European Elections".
The reader is entitled to assume that the four reasons relate to the European Community, or at least to European issues, but one of them turns out to be the argument that
The health service is one of the nation's greatest assets and it is vital that we stop the Tories dismantling it.
I await with eager anticipation the hon. Gentleman's explanation of how a Labour vote in the European elections will help or hinder the National Health Service.
When I last referred to the Health Service as an argument advanced by the Labour party in its European campaign, the hon. Gentleman leapt to the Dispatch Box and claimed that he had been misquoted. I had quoted our own local paper in Edinburgh, which had quoted the hon. Gentleman to that effect. There is now an official Labour document saying exactly the same thing. I shall be happy to give way if he will explain how that is a relevant reason for voting Labour in the European election.

Mr. Foulkes: Read the others.

Mr. Rifkind: I shall happily read the rest. Another reason given for voting Labour is:
Today when the 'ugly face of capitalism' is expressing itself through the policies of the present government, it is imperative that the Labour Party is strong and secure.

Mr. Foulkes: Quite right.

Mr. Rifkind: It is pathetic that a party seeking to suggest to the electorate that it is fighting the European elections on European issues should make no reference at all to European matters in two of the four main reasons given for voting Labour.

Mr. Norman Buchan: That is rubbish.

Mr. Rifkind: I quite agree.

Mr. Robin Cook: I shall be happy to supply the Minister with a copy of our manifesto, which we launched this morning, so that he can make equally copious reference to that document in the next debate on Europe, which I hope will be before 14 June. We shall fight the election on a platform of European policies of the kind which I have repeatedly described in the last five debates on these matters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however,


in casting their votes in the only national election before the next general election, the electorate are also entitled to pass judgment on the policies of the Government in office. I can see no finer reason for rejecting the Government now in office than their butchering of the Health Service.

Mr. Rifkind: We now have the true position of the Labour party. Clearly it wishes to fight the election on anything but European issues.
On other occasions the hon. Gentleman has said that the Labour party intends to fight the election in partnership with its Socialist allies for peace, using issues such as cruise missiles. When one examines the policies of other Socialist parties, and especially Socialist Governments, however, it seems that it will be difficult for the Labour party to find such allies. The most important Socialist Government in Europe — that of France — not only believe in the independent deterrent, but strongly favour the deployment of cruise missiles.
Writing in Sanity in April of this year, referring to various Socialist parties in the Community, the hon. Member for Livingston said:
There are differences between us and the Italians and there are of course even more profound differences between us and the French Socialists. They adopt a position within the European Socialist movement which is eccentric".
Hon. Members may laugh, but those are the natural allies which the Labour party will be calling upon for support in the European elections.
We recently heard that the present chairman of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) believes that the best way to encourage people to vote on 14 June is to produce a Socialist song for Europe. We had a prelude to that last night, when the Leader of the Opposition did a song and dance act of his own. I do not know what the Socialist song for Europe will be, but perhaps I may suggest some titles. If it is intended to refer to the state of the Labour party, what about "The party's over, it's time to call it a day"? If it is to refer to the Leader of the Opposition, "Will you still need me when I'm 64" might be appropriate. If it is to refer to the twisting and turning of the Labour party, especially since the last general election, which it fought on a policy of immediate withdrawal from the Community, nothing could be more appropriate than "Let's twist again like we did last summer."
I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West on the excellent way in which he introduced the motion. I believe that he and my other hon. Friends who have spoken, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who made a very powerful speech, have explained in the most eloquent possible way why only a vote for the Conservative party in the European elections can be in the national interest. I believe that strong support for the Government, even from those who do not usually vote Conservative, is the most important way to show our partners and allies in Europe the basic soundness of our negotiating position and our faith in the future of Europe, and in a fair and equitable conclusion to the present negotiations. I believe that that is in the interests not just of Britain but of the Community as a whole.

Mr. Ron Leighton: We have just been entertained with a knockabout attack on the

Labour party from which we learnt very little about the Government's policies. Incidentally, I do not think that the Minister was quite accurate in suggesting that President Mitterrand was prepared to have cruise missiles on French soil on the same terms as the British Government.
I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on introducing the debate. Like the hon. Gentleman, I want peace to be maintained in Europe and the world, but he must not be like the old generals who, when they start a campaign, try to fight the last war all over again. The danger of war in Europe is between not Western countries, but East and West. I am not sure what an arrangement in one part of Europe can do to diminish that risk.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) was right when he said that debates on the Common Market tended to empty the House. The obvious deduction from that is that there is no affection or love for the Common Market in this country or even in the House. He might care to consider why debates of this kind do not attract the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) or the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) who held out such high hopes when they took us into the Common Market. Rather than attending these debates to extol the great achievements that have been made, they tend to keep a discreet distance, because no one—or only the incredibly naive, of whom very few remain, or fools—now expects to hear any good news from the Common Market. The benefits of membership are like flying saucers. Very few people have seen them, and one tends to have doubts about the mental balance of those who claim to have seen them. All rational people who take a dispassionate view of the matter long ago gave up hope of any good news.
All that, of course, was entirely predictable. Everyone knew that the farm policy was crazy and unsuited to British needs. We have always been the largest food importer, and we had the cheapest food of any industrial nation, which benefited our living standards and exporters. That policy had suited Britain since the repeal of the corn laws. Effectively, we have now reimposed the corn laws and have a savage and vicious system of agricultural protection as well as a high price regime.
It is clear why these high prices have come about. We need only look at the farmers' demonstrations on the continent to realise that they are designed to appease the agricultural lobby. In other words, this is the way in which the ruling parties on the continent bribe their farmers to vote for them. I do not mind that or object to it. If that is what they want to do, fine. But I object to their using our money to bribe their farmers.
Before we entered this arrangement, we used to subsidise British farmers to produce half our food. The other half was imported at world market prices. Consequently, we gave subsidies to British farmers to produce cheap food. We now pay subsidies to foreign farmers to maintain high food prices, and there is no sense in that.
Even British farmers were misled. I think that Sir Henry Plumb has been the worst leader that British farmers have ever had, and I look back with fond affection to the days of Lord Woolley. This policy is ruining our countryside. We are drenching it with chemicals and rooting out the


hedgerows. We are brutalising and vandalising the countryside. Indeed, if one drives through East Anglia in the autumn, it is like driving through a battlefield.
High food prices have led to high land prices, and as a result the farmers' profit margin is small. Farmers have piled up huge debts and are mortgaged to the hilt. Would-be farmers cannot make a start. Most of our large farms are now owned by City institutions. Despite all that, the whole edifice is collapsing, like the South Sea bubble, because the policy is running out of money.
Certain controls and freezes have consequently been placed on prices, and that has led to squeals from the farmers. Despite those high prices, many farmers will now go bankrupt. Working farmers and farm workers have not benefited.
The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), whose part of the country I know well, complained in a previous debate about the cut in milk production. He is right. Why should we cut our milk production when we have no surplus of dairy products? What does the hon. Gentleman say when his farmers ask, "Why should we cut production when we produce no surplus?" He must tell them, "It is no good coming to me because these decisions are not made in the British Parliament. They are made by alien institutions, not by the British House of Commons." Therefore, we have lost control over our agriculture and abandoned self-government in such matters.
What we lose on the swings we also lose on the roundabouts of the Community budget. The revenue of that budget is decided not on ability to pay, fairness or equity, but on three bizarre and grotesque taxes. First, there are import duties on manufactured goods from outside. As most of our trade still takes place outside the Common Market, we pay more in taxes on manufactured imports. Secondly, there are levies on food imports. Again, we import more food than other member states, and consequently pay more. We shall always do so. Thirdly, there is the percentage of VAT. When one turns the penny over, one finds that overwhelmingly the money is spent on agriculture. As Britain is not primarily an agricultural nation, it was always likely that we should have to pay in more and draw out less. That was predicted and has been mentioned many times in the House.
The full horror of all this was realised by the Prime Minister only in 1979 when the transitional period ended. When she went to Dublin, she discovered that Britain would have to pay £1 billion net, and she was horrified. She said that she wanted our money back and that she was not prepared to accept half a loaf. She was right. Why should Britain pay anything at all? After all, we are one of the poorest nations in the Community. Surely we should be one of the net beneficiaries. It is a strange club of 10 members when only two contribute. Why should we be one of the two?
In fact, the Prime Minister did settle for half a loaf, which temporarily depended on a permanent solution that was promised throughout the whole of the last Parliament. We were told that it was just around the corner. Initially, it was to be done during the British presidency, then at Stuttgart, then at Athens and then at Brussels, all of which were predictable fiascos.
Now we do not even have the half a loaf for last year that was promised at Stuttgart. What will be done about that? My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr.

Cook) asked the Minister about that, but I did not hear a distinct reply. The Prime Minister makes a lot of noise, demands our money and "bats for Britain"— or does she? So far it has been all bluster and no action. If the right hon. Lady remains as a sounding brass or tinkling cymbal —all bluster and no action—the empress will be seen to have no clothes. I suspect that in the forthcoming elections the British electorate will perceive that.
In fact, the Prime Minister has the card to play which could solve the problem. Europe gets our money because we write the cheques. We could solve this problem this evening by resolving to stop signing the cheques which send our money across the exchanges. However, we are told that we cannot do that, because that would be illegal, and that what was promised us at Stuttgart was unconstitutional because there is no provision for summit conferences in the Treaty of Rome and that agreement at such conferences is meaningless. We are told that this is their money, not ours. That shows that this Parliament no longer has the sole power to decide the taxation of the British people.
We are now being taxed by methods and in amounts that are not decided by this Parliament. Alien institutions are taxing us and telling us what to do with our money. There is now a higher body than this Parliament. The House of Commons is being treated like a county council —as though it were the GLC, to be rate capped. There is no more graphic illustration of the loss of self-government that we have endured. Personally, I shall never be reconciled to that, nor will I ever recognise a higher authority outside this House. I am certain that we shall regain these rights. At the moment, we should withhold those payments. They should be paid into some frozen fund, and we should withhold what is justly ours.
However, the greatest damage is done not by the budget but by the trading deficit. Before we entered the Common Market, we had a surplus of £1 billion on our trade balance in manufactured goods. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) explained, we are now over £8 billion in deficit. When we joined the EEC, our exports were 130 per cent. of our imports. That ratio has now fallen to 65 per cent. There has been a complete turn-round of about £10 billion. I know that the calculations are difficult, but if that works out at about £10,000 a job it means that that trade deficit is inflicting 1 million unemployed people on this country.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Leighton: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as other hon. Members wish to speak.
I know of no other country that would tolerate such a haemorrhage in its balance of payments. We operate controls against Japan. Where are the free traders who say that we must have no management of our trade? We say that the Japanese can have only 12 per cent. of our motor car market. There is no free trade there. If we are ever to tackle our unemployment problems, we shall have to balance our trade with the Common Market as well, and we shall have to seek some equity.
We should change the basis of our relationship with the EEC. I hope that Labour candidates will campaign on a platform of reform. We want a looser arrangement of free, independent countries. I believe in internationalism. The


world "inter" means between. Instead of supra-nationalism, I want to see a group of independent, self-governing countries co-operating together. I completely agreed with the splendid article by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister read out, which suggested a new treaty that would provide a basis for better relations with our neighbours. Instead of haggling, quarrelling and fighting with them, we would have a much better relationship if we did precisely what my right hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. John Stokes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on moving this motion just before the EEC elections, which are being held at a time when the EEC is not popular in this country. English people still retain many insular prejudices, with which I have some sympathy. I have been present throughout the debate and have heard more criticism of than praise for the EEC. I am afraid that some of that criticism is well founded, but all the critical speeches have lacked any clear suggestion of an alternative to belonging to the EEC. The Labour party's whole stance on this matter is still an enigma wrapped in a mystery.
It would be unthinkable now for us to leave the Community. With all its imperfections, its failures and the tiresomeness of some of its members, it is still a tremendous bulwark for the West and an insurance that the nations of western Europe will never fight one another again. The question of a fair settlement of the budget lingers on, of course, like the pain in a nagging tooth, but, unlike some Opposition Members, most people will respect the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to try to obtain a fair settlement of this difficult issue.
The motion asks us to look to the future of the EEC. I do not wish to see any increase whatever in the powers of the European Asembly. I cannot really see what that body does, or what it could or should do. I want a Cabinet Minister, who is responsible to this House, representing me in Europe. I cannot see how these new Members of the European Parliament fit into that picture. I hope that we can build the EEC into a strong alliance of friendly nation states and that we shall not look forward to any kind of federal Europe. I cannot see that day coming, at least for a very long time, and it would be most unwise and dangerous to press for it.
The EEC is supposed to have a political will. In the early days we were told, "Do not worry about the price of butter. It is the political will that will matter." I have always regarded that as very important. The EEC supported us in the Falklands war, and we must never forget that, but apart from that it has not done very much. Over the Libyan embassy outrage the silence was deafening. I cannot see why we cannot combine over matters such as terrorism.
I believe that the EEC has a part to play in improving the dreadful situation in the middle east, where, for example, its views on the need for a home for the Palestinians are so much more sensible and balanced than those of our American allies. I also hope that the EEC will support us if we have to intervene in the Gulf with our French and American allies.
In many ways, the political hope of the EEC having a voice in world affairs has been disappointed. It intervened

over Northern Ireland, but that was quite out of order and a great mistake. I look upon the EEC fundamentally as a back-up to NATO, even though the EEC has no responsibility for defence. I believe that our statesmen there should exercise the same sort of influence in this congress of Europe as, for example, Castlereagh and Wellington did at the congress of Vienna in 1815.
We have heard a great deal today about the CAP and what a disaster it has turned out to be. As I have no farmers in my constituency, I can speak freely. I welcome the cut in milk production, which should have been made long ago. Surely intelligent milk producers must have known that the good times could not go on for ever. I only wish that there could be a similar cut in cereal production, wine, olive oil, butter and so on. It is certainly an affront to everyone in the West to see all those products sold at knockdown prices to our enemies behind the iron curtain.
I realise that these matters will not be solved easily or in the short-term. I sympathise enormously with my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and all the other Foreign Office Ministers who have to spend such an unconscionable time on the minutiae of EEC business, instead of spending all their time looking after the greatness of our country. But we must be firm and patient. The continental mind works differently from ours—it has had much less parliamentary experience than we have had, and many of the countries are very new compared with ours. The continentals are too legalistic in their thinking, too dogmatic, too rigid and too logical—and sometimes very tiresome they can be.
Our French friends, in particular, are almost always a burden to us, and no doubt they sometimes find us a burden too. Nevertheless, we must get on together. Although I am strongly in favour of the American alliance, we and some European countries may have rather greater experience of world affairs than America has, and the EEC's voice may be good if the Americans occasionally go slightly awry.
The EEC also presents a challenge to the Warsaw pact powers. It is a beacon of freedom which cannot be hidden behind the Berlin wall. As we know, many on the other side of the iron curtain listen regularly to the free radio in western Europe. The EEC can also show the way to other countries, and particularly to those Third world countries which we wish to help, but which so often behave irresponsibly in the United Nations, and sometimes in a very hostile manner towards us.
I am disappointed with the EEC. I had great hopes of it, and still have hopes of it. We want to see some idealism there and we want to see that collection of the oldest nations in the world—the successors of Christendom—making their mark instead of spending their time on all those mundane, miserable day-to-day matters. Surely we in Europe are the most civilised, cultured and certainly the most Christian powers in the world. Cannot we make a better showing than at present?

Mr. Jim Spicer: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 17.

Division No. 308]
[7 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Tom


Amess, David
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.






Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hayes, J.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hayhoe, Barney


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hayward, Robert


Baldry, Anthony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Henderson, Barry


Batiste, Spencer
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Hickmet, Richard


Bendall, Vivian
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hill, James


Best, Keith
Hind, Kenneth


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bottomley, Peter
Holt, Richard


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hooson, Tom


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hordern, Peter


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howard, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bright, Graham
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Brinton, Tim
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Browne, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunter, Andrew


Bulmer, Esmond
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Key, Robert


Cash, William
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Chope, Christopher
Knox, David


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Lang, Ian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Latham, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lawrence, Ivan


Cockeram, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Colvin, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Coombs, Simon
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cope, John
Lilley, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Couchman, James
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lord, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Dorreil, Stephen
Major, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Mates, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mather, Carol


Dunn, Robert
Mellor, David


Evennett, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fallon, Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Farr, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nelson, Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Newton, Tony


Franks, Cecil
Nicholls, Patrick


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Normanton, Tom


Freeman, Roger
Onslow, Cranley


Gale, Roger
Osborn, Sir John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Ottaway, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Parris, Matthew


Goodlad, Alastair
Patten, John (Oxford)


Gow, Ian
Pattie, Geoffrey


Gower, Sir Raymond
Porter, Barry


Greenway, Harry
Raffan, Keith


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Rathbone, Tim


Grist, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Ground, Patrick
Rifkind, Malcolm


Grylls, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hanley, Jeremy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hannam, John
Rost, Peter


Harvey, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Haselhurst, Alan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hawksley, Warren
Sayeed, Jonathan





Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Michael
Trippier, David


Silvester, Fred
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Speed, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Speller, Tony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spencer, Derek
Watts, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Squire, Robin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wilkinson, John


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Woodcock, Michael


Tapsell, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Terlezki, Stefan
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)



Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Mr. Jim Spicer and


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. John Stokes.


Thurnham, Peter





NOES


Alton, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Ashdown, Paddy
Skinner, Dennis


Hoyle, Douglas
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kirkwood, Archibald
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Madden, Max
Wainwright, R.


Maxton, John



Meadowcroft, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Penhaligon, David
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Mr. James Wallace.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, recognising the vital role that a closely knit European Community could and should play in world affairs, congratulates both the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government on their continuing efforts to ensure a strong voice in Europe for Britain and that all necessary changes are made within the Community to sustain respect for that institution and to enhance its authority both internally and externally.

Mr. Keith Best: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the procedure of the House. We have just voted on a matter of considerable importance. The motion congratulates my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government on their continuing efforts to ensure that we have a strong voice in Europe. Only 17 Opposition Members voted. As I counted only a few more than 17 sitting on the Opposition Benches during the debate, I realise that the debate does not arouse the excitement of the Opposition. I am confused whether that means that the Opposition are unable to make up their mind about the matter, or—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we want to have points of order on such matters.

Mr. John Golding: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the Opposition want to get on with the Third Reading of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Indeed it is.

Orders of the Day — Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the royal ordnance factories, which are at present an integral part of the Ministry of Defence, to become an independent commercial organisation established as a Companies Act company. Under its terms, the Secretary of State for Defence could transfer Government assets — largely those that are at present in the ROF trading fund—to the company, taking complementay action to extinguish the trading fund. He would transfer with the assets, to become company employees, the non-industrial and industrial staff currently paid by the fund or who are engaged in work closely connected with its operations.
At the heart of the Bill are the provisions in clauses 1, 2 and 3 about schemes. Schemes are the chief mechanism by which MOD and other Government property —including that of copyright presently vested in the Queen —will be transferred to the company to ensure that it can function as a successful commercial organisation.
In response to the wishes of the Opposition, and following discussion in Committee, we have amended clause 3(9) so as to provide that, within a month of any scheme coming into force, it will be laid before Parliament with only minimal omissions to protect essential security and commercial interests. It is important that the scheme should, with those necessary exclusions, thus be made generally public so that all those whose rights are affected should know where they stand. The schemes will have full legal effect and will explain as comprehensively as possible what is being transferred from the Department to the company.
In return for that transfer of property, rights and liabilities, the Secretary of State will receive consideration in the form of securities to be issued by the transferee company. Initially, the Secretary of State will be the sole shareholder. Work is in hand to identify and value all the assets that are to be transferred and we shall, of course, take steps to ensure that the Government secure a full financial return for the transfers.
During our earlier consideration of the Bill in Committee, we had a very full discussion about valuation. I shall, therefore, limit myself to essential principles. There will be a rigorous valuation, the principles of which will be made clear in the published scheme, and a closing account for the ROF trading fund, to be audited by the National Audit Office, reporting to the Public Accounts Committee, and published. We have also undertaken to publish as soon as possible the opening balance sheet of the company. In that way we shall ensure that proper value for the taxpayer will be both achieved and seen by Parliament to have been achieved.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: How will the Minister publish for the stock exchange details that are of

great security value and that cannot be revealed? How will they be evaluated? Will there be a public declaration giving details of everything that is secure within the ROFs?

Mr. Pattie: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that I am talking about the transfer of the ROFs in their present position as a Department of Government to their future position. The hon. Gentleman asked about security considerations. The same considerations will apply to the new company as apply to any other company seeking to notify the stock exchange about security matters. Many companies in Britain have dealings with the Government and are involved in security matters. They notify the Stock Exchange without any infringement of principles. It is not a problem.
Crucial to the success of the ROF enterprise is its work force. Thus, a vital part of the Bill — contained in schedule 2 — are the provisions relating to those who will be transferred with the enterprise to the employment of the new company. Employees will transfer under the terms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 — TUPE '81 — which means that they will do so on, broadly, their present terms and conditions of employment. As has been made clear in previous discussions, there will be no change in such things as employees' pay, leave or in retirement policy as a result of transfer. In addition, the current rights of trade unions — whether Civil Service or otherwise — to negotiate on behalf of their members will be transferred unchanged.
I recognise the concern that many of those being transferred have about the loss of Civil Service status that will be involved. There are real anxieties here, and it is precisely for that reason that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have given the House, at previous stages of the Bill's progress, as much information as possible about the terms and nature of the transfer; and it is precisely for that reason that my Department has been engaged in intensive consultations with the Ministry of Defence trade unions where we are endeavouring to reach clear understandings and, we hope, agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have also seen the unions on a number of occasions.
It is because of the TUPE '81 regulations, to which I referred, that the proposed legislation contains no detailed provisions relating to terms and conditions of service in the new employment; schedule 2 does, however, contain some incidental provisions necessitated by the particular circumstances of the transfer. Certain terms and conditions of employment of civil servants are directly related to the fact that they are employees of the Crown. There are, for example, restrictions on the political activities of civil servants, and they have a right of recourse to certain Civil Service appeals boards. Clearly it would be inappropriate to transfer those to the new employment.
The schedule also provides that the act of transfer of employees to the new organisation shall not give rise to an entitlement to redundancy benefits under the Superannuation Act 1972. Indeed, as employment and terms and conditions are unaffected, it would be indefensible—and quite contrary to common sense—if the position were otherwise. Under TUPE '81, the conditions of employment of the staff transferred will be unchanged apart from the minor matters specifically


related to Crown service to which I have referred. Security of employment in that sense will be no different after the transfer from what it is at present.
Superannuation arrangements are specifically excluded from the regulations, and staff who are transferred from the Civil Service cannot remain in the principal Civil Service pension scheme. A new company scheme is therefore being devised that will provide benefits comparable to those of the Civil Service scheme, including the continuation of index-linking. The proposed scheme will be governed by trust deeds and will be fully funded in respect of the employees' past service with the Crown. There have already been a number of discussions with the trade unions, and these continue. I understand the concern that the unions have expressed on behalf of their members, and I appreciate that they are not yet fully satisfied that the company scheme will in all circumstances match the Civil Service scheme, but, as I have said, discussions continue and will, I hope, result finally in an outcome acceptable to all parties. I repeat that it is our intention that there should be no detriment in this respect.
One other crucial personnel issue is that of redundancy compensation. On this I repeat what we made clear on Second Reading and on Report, that compensation levels for existing employees will match those currently provided for in the Civil Service pension scheme. On this issue, too, we are in continuing discussion with the unions.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned again the point about no detriment, which has been central to the argument. Will he accept that, although he believes that there will be no detriment, he has yet to convince either the work force or—judging by the debate the other day — many Conservative Back Benchers that there will be none? Should not something more be done to convince them that there will be no detriment?

Mr. Pattie: I said a moment ago that our discussions with the unions are continuing and it is, I hope, implied in that remark that they are continuing because we have not yet got final agreement. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
In Committee, and also on Report, a number of queries were raised about the proposed structure of the Companies Act company, its board of directors and the subsequent relinquishment of Government control over it. In responding to what has been said, the Government have made clear their intentions, and have done so in sufficient detail to enable judgments to be formed on the merits of our plans, although, inevitably at this stage, a large amount of administrative work is in train to enable the ROFs to cease being an integral part of the Ministry of Defence and to become an independent fully commercial operation.
The main features of our thinking have been made clear. The ROFs will be incorporated as a holding company with four fully owned subsidiary companies, acting as operating divisions. This is a straightforward commercial arrangement, following examples elsewhere in British industry. ROF employees will work for the new ROF plc, and negotiations with trade unions on pay and conditions of service which have general application will be conducted at national level. The four subsidiary companies — which will be small arms, ammunition,

weapons and fighting vehicles, and explosives — will divide between them the 11 factories in the ROF trading fund, and the two agency factories. To the explosives company will go those parts of the propellants, explosives and rocket motor establishment—PERME—which are an integral part of the Ministry at present, and also the agency factory managed by IMI at Summerfield.
PERME was one of the establishments I visited earlier this year to hear at first hand the views of those most affected by the legislation. As a matter of historical fact, the ROFs took over responsibility for the PERME establishments at Waltham Abbey and Westcott and the Summerfield agency factory on 1 April. This reflected the fact that the United Kingdom capability in the design and manufacture of rocket motors is spread among these three sites, among the ROFs and elsewhere. Although we have been capable of designing and manufacturing rocket motors to the highest standards, the industry was diffuse and unproductively complex to manage. Furthermore, with the increasing commonality between the technologies of rocket motors, propellants and explosives, it was our aim to increase the success and competitiveness of this industry so as to make best and most efficient use of its skills and expertise. By integrating PERME with the ROFs, we have created a more managerially cohesive industry which can co-ordinate all its design, development, production and sales activities. This was not previously possible. We believe that the ROFs will now be better able to exploit to the full the capability which PERME represents by cross-fertilisation between the technologies, and by aggressively seeking out new markets both at home and abroad. This we believe will be enormously to the benefit and long-term security of the staff at the PERME establishments, the ROF company, and the United Kingdom capability in rocket motors, propellants and explosives. In all conscience, we could not responsibly continue to preside over the earlier patchwork arrangements.
Overall, the new ROF company structure will allow the ROFs to function in a fully commercial way, to delegate authority wherever appropriate, and, most importantly, to build on the strengths which already exist in the organisation while assimilating the new functions that are being transferred. It recognises the inter-dependent nature of much of ROF business and also its natural operating units. Others may disagree, but the intention has been not, as has been argued by some Opposition Members, to take issue with the findings of the Mallabar committee, but to bring its work up to date by taking it forward to its logical conclusion.
There are some other main issues. I note that we have explained that the relationship between the Government and the ROF company, as long as the Government remain the major shareholder, will be governed by the terms of a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the chairman of the company. We have also explained that we intend to take powers in the articles of association of the privatised company to inhibit foreign control, and we have had lengthy discussions in Committee and on Report about the justification for that and about ways and means.
One important addition to the Bill since it was introduced is that of a clause and schedule under which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to employ on site at the factories after vesting day, with their existing responsibilities, the Ministry of Defence police.


We had full discussions about security in Committee and on Report. I think I can fairly say that our decision has in principle been endorsed, as was our proposal that, in due course, the company should recruit, train and deploy its own guard force. I appreciate the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on this issue, but I repeat what I said on Report, that, in the light of our plans as announced, there should be no risk that after vesting day the ROFs will become more vulnerable than they are at present to the risk of theft of stores potentially useful to terrorists, or be exposed to attack.
Clause 14 is concerned with the contingent liabilities of the Secretary of State for Defence in connection with International Military Services Limited — IMS. This clause is in the Bill to meet Parliament's wishes that statutory cover should be taken to provide all sums paid in connection with the Secretary of State's 100 per cent. shareholding in the company, or in consequence of arrangements for financial support of the company. I should emphasise that we are concerned here with a contingent liability. There has been no recourse to public funds so far. The recent trading performance of IMS has been impressive, with substantially increased turnover and reserves. There was a full discussion of this clause in Committee and I do not seek to detain the House further on it.
The Bill remains a short one and is indeed a limited enabling measure, but the change of status for the royal ordnance factories which it will make possible is an important step forward in the evolution of the ROFs. They have proved their success in manufacturing over several centuries, and they have proved themselves capable of commercial success in their incarnation as the trading fund which was established following the recommendations of the Mallabar report in 1971. It is now time for the significant step taken by the creation of the trading fund to be extended by two further steps.
First, we are removing the constraints recognised by Mallabar as natural to part of a Government Department but inappropriate for a trading company operating in a fully commercial environment on all fours with its competitors. Secondly, the enterprise is being provided with a research and development capability based upon the transfers from PERME to which I have referred.
Our aim is to build on the experience of the trading fund to allow the ROFs full freedom to develop commercially as a manufacturing industry, and to respond to the challenges of both domestic and world markets. It is in the market place that the ROFs' management and work force will shape their future. We have provided the means for the ROFs to ensure a healthy order book from the armed services—in 1979 the ROFs secured MOD work worth £210 million, and last year that figure had risen by two thirds to £350 million. The ROFs have not done badly by us and we have not done badly by them. We intend to remain close to each other, but increasingly the ROFs will have to ensure their market competitiveness by building upon this baseload of work for the armed forces with a buoyant export order book. We want them to be as free as possible to do so. That is the heart of our proposals. Our aim is to improve the competitiveness and performance of British industry generally and of this particular—and important—part of defence industry.
At a later stage but, we hope, a not much later stage, we propose to seek the introduction of private capital into

the company. The route and timescale for that will depend essentially on the ROFs' trading record, once freed from the constraints to which I referred, but we have made it clear that our preferred method of privatisation, if feasible, would be a stock exchange flotation of the enterprise as a whole. The present Bill is, however, concerned with the incorporation of the ROFs as a wholly Government-owned company. We will at a later date put forward detailed proposals on privatisation in the light of the circumstances at the time. There will no doubt be an opportunity to discuss them, should the House so wish at that time.
The Bill enables the royal ordnance factories to control their own commercial future. It will be best for the company, provide the best long-term guarantee of employment for the work force, and suit the Ministry best as a customer. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister of State read his brief, but he did not tell us why the Government have embarked on this exercise. He tried to tone it down, saying that the Bill was concerned only with forming a company to be owned by the Secretary of State. However, we all know that that is a preliminary to selling the ordnance factories in the market place, when they will be totally on their own.
I should like the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to give a clearer reply to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) in respect of the problems of informing the stock exchange about assets that might be of a secret nature. The Minister, in reply to my hon. Friend, said that apparently other companies had notified the stock exchange, and there had been no problem of security. I hope that we shall receive an expanded answer, because the Minister of State was thrown a little by my hon. Friend's question and was concerned to choose his words carefully.
No one has told us why it is necessary for profitable and productive factories, like the ROFs, which have provided the armed forces with weapons and ammunition of the highest quality at a very reasonable price for a long time, with a loyal and skilled work force, to be sold into the market place, with all the turmoil, uncertainty and consequences that no one can foresee. What on earth is the benefit of this exercise to the country? What is the benefit to the country's defences? What benefit is there to the employees of the ordnance factories and to the British taxpayer? We received no answers to those questions on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report, or now on Third Reading. However, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary still has to wind up. Perhaps we shall receive answers then, but I doubt it.
At one time it seemed that this was a small operation by the Ministry of Defence and that it was not terribly important; but, having studied the sections in the defence White Paper on the reorganisation of the defence industry and the Secretary of State's plans for contracting out for the dockyards, gunnery ranges and all the paraphernalia of management, I believe that the Bill is just part of a grand design by the Government to change the relationship that has existed for a long time between the Government and—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: I am glad that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is nodding assent to what I am saying. The Government are changing the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the defence industry. I once described it as a symbiotic relationship; it has its advantages. It seems we are debating the forerunner of a substantial change in that relationship.
The Prime Minister is on her own ideological high, and is determined to sell everything in sight, including part of our armed forces. The Secretary of State for Defence is suffering from what I would call managerial mania. He wants to sell or contract out whatever he can find. He wants to change the relationship to which I referred. It is curious that the two have somehow come together. On the one hand, we have the Prime Minister's ideological need to sell everything and, on the other, the Secretary of State's managerial desire to do so.
Conservative Members who have defence interests in their constituencies should start thinking about this. The whole exercise could be very damaging not only to the ordnance factories, but to Britain's defence interests, the armed forces and jobs in the defence industry. Many jobs will be lost over the next few years as a result not only of the Bill but of the changes that will be made.
One thing is clear. The Bill is proposed not because the ordnance factories are unprofitable. They have made profits most of the time. They have made no claim upon the Treasury or the public sector borrowing requirement. Indeed, they have paid money back into the dreaded PSBR and helped the Government to reduce it slightly. There is no question about their efficiency. They have been awarded the Queen's Award for Industry. We have not heard any criticism of the ordnance factories' efficiency.
There has been no criticism of the prices that the ordnance factories charge. There are problems in respect of establishing prices, even now when the prices are established between private manufacturers, the defence industry and the Ministry of Defence. That is, and always will be, a problem. I do not think that anyone would suggest that the trading fund has overcharged the Ministry of Defence. I should have thought that it could not do so, because the Ministry of Defence knows very well what the costs of the trading fund are and can determine the prices. Therefore, there is no question of overcharging. The ordnance factories have produced good quality armaments, ammunition and weapons at proper and reasonable prices.
There is no question about the quality of the product, which is first class. On Second Reading the Minister of State said that the efforts of the staff in the ordnance factories
have made the organisation a success not only in terms of the quality of its products, which are second to none in the world, but in its trading performance."—[Official Report, 16 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 26.]
Why on earth is it necessary to tamper with this organisation when its products are second to none and its trading performance is so good? I should have thought that it was not possible to improve on that, in the light of the Minister of State's words.
What about the quality of staff? One should go back to the Mallabar report, which was dismissed by the Government as it was embarrassing. It is as up-to-date today as it was in 1971 when it first came out. The

reference to staff in the report was read out on Second Reading, and it is right to read it again before we vote on Third Reading. In chapter 6, it stated:
The main features which prompt general comment are:
(1) the degree of identification with the Armed Forces operates in all the factories. This identification provides strong motivation towards the manufacture of a high quality, reliable and safe product …
(3) The calibre of management staff generally; the ability of the more junior managers (foremen and assistant foremen) to express their views and the freedom with which they did so. They were articulate to a degree not often found in industry …
Those of us who have spent our careers in industry and who, between us, have covered all aspects of industrial management felt that the factories were well managed and controlled. Our view was endorsed by our specialist colleagues".
The staff are first class, loyal and intelligent. How will it be possible to improve the situation by selling them off into the market place? As I have said, the reason for the sale is ideological.
I came to the Second Reading debate as a cynical ex-Treasury Minister thinking, "It is the money that they are after." The Government need every penny that they can get. The oil revenues are about to peak and will start slowly to decline, and supporting the 3·5 million unemployed is expensive. The Government will sell anything off in order to try to finance themselves for the next three or four years. However, the sale will not provide very much money.
We are told—not by the Government but by some City analysts, who multiply the profits by a certain multiplier—

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Merchant bankers.

Mr. Davies: Yes; the merchant bankers will collect huge fees if the sale goes through.

Mr. Robert Atkins: How much money did the right hon. Gentleman make?

Mr. Davies: I wish that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) would not intervene from a sedentary position.

Mr. Atkins: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, from his experience as a merchant banker, about which we heard so much in Committee, will be able to guide my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the details and the price.

Mr. Davies: It is my experience which enables me to say how much the merchant bankers used to get. As a person of high moral standards, I left the merchant bank when I realised what high fees it was demanding.
The Government will not make much money out of the sale. The figure given by the City analysts was £300 million, but they did not take account of the new climate of competition and the fact that in future the new ordnance factories will have the right to sell first to the Ministry of Defence. The figure is bound to be much less than £300 million, given the new bracing competitive climate which will accompany the changes taking place in the defence industries. Even if the figure is £300 million, about £250 million will be spent on preserving pension rights. After the stockbrokers' and merchant bankers' fees have been deducted, the PSBR may benefit by only £50 million, or less. The motive cannot be financial. The factories are being sold because of the ideological fix of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.
One specific reason for the sale is that it will expunge 18,000 civil servants from the books of the Ministry of Defence. That will keep the Prime Minister happy. When the Secretary of State makes his end of term report, he will be able to show that he has got rid of all those civil servants, and done so on the cheap. Despite some concessions, it is clear that, in relation to the pension arrangements, the Government are getting rid of those civil servants on the cheap. They will not have pension arrangements similar to those in the Civil Service.
The Tories are opposed to the index-linking of Civil Service pensions, but they should remember that index-linking was introduced by a Conservative Government, and the Scott report, which was set up by a Conservative Government, did not recommend abolishing it. Conservative Members must therefore accept that it would be wrong for the Government to chuck away the index-linked pension rights of the people concerned. Because of the nature of the funding of Government and private pension schemes, it is not possible to give the same index-linking to the employees of a private company as to members of the Civil Service pension scheme.
The Government are taking away pension rights from the employees, and it was the height of cheek for the Minister of State to say that new entrants will receive comparable benefits. There are to be two pension schemes. There will be one for the employees who, like helots, are to be transferred to the new company from the Civil Service. It will not be as good as their present scheme. The second scheme will be for new entrants, and that scheme will be even worse. It will be a second-class scheme. If the two schemes are to provide comparable benefits, why are two schemes to be provided? This is a way of saving a little money on the cheap. The problems of having two separate trust deeds and two funds will be such that it will not be worth having two schemes if the benefits are to be comparable. The Minister of State knows that they are not and cannot be comparable.
Clearly the Bill is part of a major exercise in selling off and freeing from Government influence and control—I choose my words with care — the whole defence industrial base. The Government are changing the order of things. The existing relationship, involving the Ministry of Defence and the private defence manufacturers, will be changed by what the Secretary of State has in mind. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State — the ideological dry and wet—have found a common cause and point of coalescence in selling off, and ending the control of, our defence industries.
An important point was made by the Minister of State on Second Reading. I missed its significance at the time, because of his genial bonhomie and soporific prose. He said:
The Government's message, loud and clear, to companies in the defence industrial base has been, and continues to be, 'concentrate more on your exports because in real terms the Ministry of Defence will be less and less able to provide the proportion of work that you have enjoyed with us in the past.'
The quotation marks in the Official Report must have appeared in the Minister's notes. If not, Hansard would not have known that they were there.
That was a most important statement, although neither I nor the hon. Member for South Ribble took note of it at the time. The Minister of State continued:

We recognise that we must help industry to improve its export performance by earlier involvement in the planning of our future requirements and also by assisting it to design and produce equipment that is more saleable abroad.
That follows from the first proposition.
We will do this not by insisting on the so-called gold plating of requirements"—
more jargon—
which adds greatly to costs and also often produces over-elaborate sophistication."—[Official Report, 16 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 27.]
That statement is important in regard to the ROFs and changing the emphasis in the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and arms manufacturers. Later, we had the defence White Paper and its obsession with changing the defence industries. Now we read in today's newspapers that British Shipbuilders is to sell off its only profitable yards. Its warship building yards are to be sold off as part of this exercise. We recently read of the silly proposed takeover bid by Thorn-EMI for British Aerospace. Conservative Members will not listen and will probably scoff at this, but, in the next few years, there will be many takeovers and mergers in the defence industry because of what is happening now. The result will be detrimental to Britain's defence industrial base, to our armed forces and to the people who work in the industry because many jobs will be lost. Experience shows that is the case once the City gets involved in takeovers and realises that there is money to be made and shares to be shuffled around.
The Minister has told the defence industry to sell abroad — to export or die. We heard that one years ago. However, it is the new doctrine in relation to defence industries. We have also heard about gold plating. When stripped of the jargon, export or die and gold plating mean, "Scour the world to find as many tin-pot dictators as you can and sell them defence equipment. It does not have to be gold plated. You can make second-rate equipment because the Ministry of Defence will now buy it for the British armed forces as well so that it is easier for you to sell it." Conservative Members might not like that, but it is true. Frigates for Uruguay do not have to be as sophisticated as those for the eastern Atlantic. The complaint has always been that the Ministry of Defence's requirements are too stringent, with the result that frigates, for example, cannot be sold. I admit that we sold a few to Argentina—perhaps under a Labour Government. No more gold plating really means inferior equipment which second or third-rate countries will buy. Apparently it is now thought good enough for our armed forces as well.
The British defence industry, like the defence industries of most western countries, such as France and the United States, has been protected though the protection has not been in the form of import controls. Governments have generally tried to buy British, because that has been felt to be right. The industry has been protected a little by the gold plating or special requirements of the Ministry of Defence, as those requirements have made it difficult for others to compete. The industry has also been protected a little on price because a blind eye has been turned on cost to protect the industrial base. Such protection has maintained our defence industry and its viability, despite the fact that our civilian manufacturing base has been eroded rapidly since 1980. It now appears that the Government are removing that protection. If that is the case and countries such as France and the United States retain it, our defence industries will suffer, and


companies, especially small subcontractors, will go to the wall. Ultimately that move might not serve the best interests of our armed forces or our defence industrial base.
I am afraid that, in the next five years, there will be the same erosion in our defence industrial base as we have seen in the civilian manufacturing base. There will be no exports, and the imports that have been coming in quite quickly recently will come in even faster.
If the Bill receives a Third Reading and goes through the other place unscathed and if the Government sell off their majority stake in the ROFs, irreparable damage will be done to factories that have shown themselves to be efficient and productive and to equipment that the British armed forces have relied on. Moreover, many people who have served the ROFs loyally and with skill will be put out of work. The only beneficiaries will be the defence industries of other countries. For that and other reasons, we shall vote against the Bill receiving a Third Reading.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I do not intend to speak for long, because I have a dreadful cold and because many of us have heard many of the arguments go round and round. We have not made much progress since Committee. It has been confirmed for me today that the Opposition's heart has not been in the campaign against the Bill. It is clear from what the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said about gold plating and other matters that he was short of things to say and had to make up some things that are clearly not true.

Mr. Denzil Davies: It was the Minister of State who on Second Reading mentioned gold plating, and I was merely responding to what he said.

Mr. Atkins: I apologise if I misled the House in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but, like many of my hon. Friends, I got the impression that he went a little over the top on matters that are not strictly relevant to this debate.
I should like to deal with gold plating, or its reverse—sanitising—which is the jargon expression we hear. When making equipment for sale abroad, because of restrictions from the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence, manufacturers sanitise it so that potential customers do not get the state of the art equipment. It cannot be construed that we are selling third-rate equipment; they just do not get the top quality stuff that we might need for a role that we fulfil. They might need to fulfil a lesser role. Our and the customers' interests are therefore protected.
Many hon. Members, especially after the Select Committee report on defence procurement, criticised gold plating. The changing requirements of the armed forces have resulted in changes having to be made to bring equipment up to the highest possible standards. The continuously changing objectives have made it difficult for industry to manufacture that equipment. I have heard it argued from a variety of sources that the sooner we can persuade the Ministry and other purchasers to freeze designs—which is what the French and the Americans do—and retrofit modifications when required, the better it will be.
But enough of that. Let me get back to the ROFs. I was waylaid by the comments of the right hon. Member for Llanelli. I support the Bill and I have a substantial constituency interest, because the Chorley ROF comprises much of the southern boundary of my constituency and is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, ROF employer. The Blackburn factory is not far from my constituency and some of my constituents work at the Patricroft ROF.
I meet quite a few of the people who work at ROFs and I am delighted to agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli and my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the ROF employees are remarkable men and women. They are a superb and dedicated work force and there is no doubt about their commitment to their jobs.
We conceded on Second Reading and in Committee that there are anxieties. When there are changes, there are bound to be anxieties about the future. They centre primarily on jobs, but I do not take kindly to the Opposition talking about job losses in defence industries. Their policies propose job cuts in defence industries that would make what the right hon. Member for Llanelli claims will happen after the Bill becomes law—which I do not accept—seem small beer.
Of course we cannot guarantee jobs. In the last few years, jobs at ROF Bishopton have been lost while the factory has been under the control of the Ministry of Defence. Market trends and problems associated with propellants and products made at Bishopton have led to a reduction in the work force. Even under Government control there would be no guarantee that work forces would be maintained at present levels.
The only guarantee that we can give is that if the factories continue to produce their products as well as they produce them at present and can maintain existing markets and find new markets, they will maintain existing job levels. Indeed, I believe that the factories are good enough to develop new markets and create new jobs. I cannot guarantee that, but that is my view on the basis of what I have seen in the ROFs and elsewhere in the defence industries.
It is ridiculous for the Opposition to keep throwing the jobs issue in our face. They know as well as we do that jobs depend on the market, prices, demand, supply, backup and so on.
The other area of concern is the welfare and pension arrangements. My hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned TUPE '81 and the continuing discussions. I am happy to go along with him, while recognising that there is still anxiety about welfare and pensions. I know from what my hon. Friend has said previously that the discussions will continue to a proper conclusion.
There has also been anxiety about security. In Committee and on Report hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned the problems relating to the Ministry of Defence police. My hon. Friend the Minister recognised that there were genuine worries across the parties and I am glad that he decided to maintain the Ministry police at the ROFs for the intervening period and to introduce a new guard force to take over a variety of the activities carried out by the Ministry police.

Mr. Ashdown: How does the hon. Gentleman feel about the Minister of State's clear suggestion that ultimately a private security force will not have access to arms?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend the Minister spoke clearly and carefully about that issue the other day and he made it plain that the Ministry police would remain in post until the evaluation by the Ministry suggested that they should be withdrawn. The Ministry police have access to arms, although I understand that they have been used only once in the past 10 or 12 years. The evaluation may suggest that in some cases the Ministry police, should not be withdrawn. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and I share, in differing ways, the anxiety about this matter. I was heartened by what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said.
There has also been concern about communication with employees. I was at Chorley when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary visited the factory and was told about the complaint that communications with the work force and the trade unions had not been as good as one might wish. My hon. Friend recognised the justification of that complaint.
We are human and we make mistakes—believe it or not—and we tried in Committee to rectify that. I have not always been as successful as I had hoped. Some offers made to the work force have not been taken up, but representatives of trade unions have come to see me and I have been able to explain matters that have worried them. I hope that that process will continue and that we will try to reinforce it as changes occur in the next few years.
At the end of the Committee stage questions were asked about the sales and turnover of the ROFs in the context of International Military Services. Questions have been asked about how much the ROFs contribute to IMS and I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to tell us what part of the equipment budget is represented by ROF sales and what proportion they represent of IMS activities.
I want to see with the ROFs—as I saw with British Aerospace, another major manufacturer in my constituency—a genuine involvement by the work force and genuine public ownership of the company and organisation. I hope that we will be able to produce a scheme to build on the service and commitment of the superb and dedicated workers in the factories throughout this country.
The factories are making excellent products to an excellent design and with excellent productivity. They will have nothing to fear when the Bill becomes law. I believe that they will be able to open new markets and get involved in wider areas of activity. If that proves to be the case, the future for the ROFs will remain as bright as it is now.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I hope that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) will forgive me if I do not take up his comments until later in my speech, though I wish him a speedy recovery from whatever he is suffering from.
The royal ordnance factory at Patricroft is in my constituency and was founded by Naismith, the man who invented the steam hammer, which was a vital part of the industrial revolution. It goes all the way back to the days of the industrial revolution. I suppose that the Minister would say that that is a good reason for privatisation. However, it has a history of considerable length, and this year it won the Queen's Award for Industry and Exports. Therefore, it is not old fashioned or out-of-date. I think that everyone in the Chamber will agree with me if I use a service expression and say that the Queen's Award for

Industry and Exports does not come up with the rations. In other words, it has to be earned. The quality of the royal ordnance factory at Patricroft is the same as that of all other ROFs. All the ROFs represent quality and superb workmanship.
It is those who use the equipment that is produced by the ROFs who perhaps are most closely involved with their work and efficiency. It is they whom the ROFs are supposed to serve. When we talk about ex-service men we include those of both high and low rank. The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) fought in the second world war and so did I. He was an officer and I was a flight sergeant. The Minister should have asked ex-service men whether they thought that they received a bad deal from the ROFs. He should have asked the generals, the admirals, the squaddies and the erks. If he had done so, they would have said that they were extremely well served by them.
It might be said that that is history. I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill, but I have been meeting service men of high rank and low rank who are currently serving in the forces. I made a thorough search but I could find no consumer of the ROFs' products who had any complaints. There are very few organisations throughout the world which never receive complaints. However, it is the Government's policy to privatise organisations that are serving the country well. They implement this policy for no good reason.
The Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State are pleasant enough. They are cheerful and kind but they know not what they do to the supply of equipment to the armed forces.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Come on!

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am coming on. Perhaps I am being a bit too strong but there are some who say that I am too friendly. The study group of Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal produced a report that contained five options. I think that Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal was right to back the first option, an evolved trading fund. If that line had been pursued, everyone would have been satisfied and the ROFs could have expanded. Why expand a royal ordnance factory? In answer to a nicely planted parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), a letter was reproduced by the Minister of State with great joy and gusto. Part of the letter reads:
Over the many years in which the Royal Ordnance Factories have been producing equipment for the Armed Forces and for overseas customers, and especially since they began to operate under a Trading Fund in 1974, their overall performance has been very satisfactory, and all their customers have been delighted with the service that they have received.
That was the starting point. The study group's first option would have provided the right answer. Evolved and enhanced trading would have produced more money and more resources to meet needs.
The hon. Member for South Ribble asked a question which I do not think was planted. The then Secretary of State replied to him and said:
The co-operation of existing staff at all levels is vital for the success of the ROFs both during the transitional period and when Companies Act status is achieved; and the need is well recognised for early discussions with the trade unions concerned on the terms and conditions of service to apply on the change of status ."—[Official Report, 20 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 151.]
It is about two years since the hon. Gentleman asked that question and there has been more than adequate


opportunity for discussions to take place in great depth and understanding. Part of the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for Bolton, West read:
Turning to the effect of privatisation on the conditions of service of ROF employees, your constituent will know that we have already informed the Trade Unions in a consultative document issued last Autumn that it is the Government's intention that the transfer shall not result in a worsening in terms and conditions".
If all the preparations have been made, why, two years later, is everyone in the ROFs complaining? Why, two years after the hon. Member for South Ribble asked his question, have the members of the ROFs sent little billets-doux to the Secretary of State to tell him that they do not want to be privatised? The work force does not want to know and the users of the equipment do not want any change to take place.
Let us consider the product against this background. We are told from time to time that private industry is best, but is that right? The royal ordnance factory at Patricroft delivers rocket motors of better quality and at a cheaper price than any of its private industry competitors. It has a very low failure rate. I shall never know why an evolved trading fund has not been put into practice.
I shall spend my last few moments appealing to the those in another place.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Oh, dear.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I was referring to the last few moments of my speech. If the hon. Gentleman is hoping that I shall go away, I must tell him that I shall remain here at least for this debate.
Those in another place may take a rather different view from the Government. They may hold the armed forces in higher esteem than do the Government. There may be some old generals and others in another place who are prepared in the national interest to vote against their party. Ministers cannot praise the quality of workmanship, the standard of efficiency and the capacity to produce high technology products that the ROFs possess and then surrender those qualities to squalid free competition.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Sir Robert Walpole liberally applied the maxim "quieta non movere" to his political career, and I am inclined to adhere to the wisdom of letting well alone. Therefore, I offer an anxious welcome to and acceptance of the Bill. My acceptance is strengthened by the exaggerations of Opposition Members. It is amazing how such exaggerations can turn one off a case.
One of the three largest royal ordnance factories is at Bishopton in my constituency. It employs more than 2,000 workers. Key industries in Renfrewshire have had a rough time during the last decade. The last time that I spoke in the House was to applaud warmly the Government's actions in supporting the development of the micro-technology industry in my constituency, which also facilitated the transfer from the public to the private sector of the ailing Scott Lithgow yard, thus saving employment on the lower Clyde from annihilation. It was a loss-making and scarcely viable firm.
Tonight we are considering a totally different set-up at ROF Bishopton. It is exceptionally well managed, its industrial relations track record is excellent, it has a steady

performance and market—indeed, a developing market — for its high quality products. Recently ROF Bishopton secured substantial orders from the United States of America, and there has been only a slight decrease in employment during the past few years. It is an ideal set-up for men and management. Now it must transfer from being a Government-run body to being free from financial constraints and scrutiny in the broader commercial field.
There are two distinct trains of thought running through the minds of the personnel at Bishopton. They are worried that the change of status may mean a contraction of employment or, worse still—depending on the way in which the company develops—that the facility could be under threat because it is remoter than most locations and most of its processes could be absorbed into ROFs in England. It is the largest producer of propellants for use in gun ammunition, rockets and guided weapons, and the sole United Kingdom manufacturer of combustible charge containers. That is some guarantee of continuity at Bishopton.
Nevertheless, there is already more than 20 per cent. unemployment in the area, and any further loss through alterations to the status quo will be met with firm resistance, not least from me. On the other hand, because of its excellent production record, Bishopton is thought by personnel to be fettered by the constraints of the present system. There is a solid volume of opinion that good can be made better by improved commercial status and that Bishopton will prosper and flourish, thus giving employment for many years to come. That is why I support the Bill.
There are, however, some small points that the Minister should consider. I was not a member of the Committee, but during one of our recent all-night sittings I spent some time, profitably, reading all 27 reports. [Interruption.] If there were not 27, it seemed like that. I distilled what I read to three pages of foolscap, which must be a comment on the Standing Committee system. I regret that some small but significant details were overlooked in the morass of duplicated speeches and fatuous arguments about paper panties from Marks and Spencer.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the hon. Lady accept that, if it had not been for Opposition Members, she could probably have distilled the reports to two sentences?

Mrs. McCurley: No, Sir. It was the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen who extended the Committee's life beyond reason.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that he will pay special attention to the transfer of farm tenancies on ROF property, offering them for sale to the existing tenants? Will he also assure me that tenants in ROF houses will be treated like local authority tenants and offered either appropriate discounts at sale or some form of guarantee of tenancy in future? There are a substantial number of people in that category, and their wishes must be respected.
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the apprentices who are employed at ROF Bishopton and, no doubt, at other ROFs? I hope that he will guarantee them continuous training. There are few apprenticeships these days. I hope that something can be done for them in this instance.
I am pleased that the question of security has been resolved. In many ways, it was the most important issue


in a factory that has 900 installations on a vast open site, and whose manufactured items are portable and pocketable. I commend the shop stewards who put that aspect even above the consideration of their membership and terms and conditions of employment. I am satisfied—and I hope I am proved right—that the new scheme will not be to their detriment. The loyal dedication of the work force must be given the highest consideration under the transfer scheme.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) for mentioning the security issues, to which I shall return. She said that the matter had been resolved, but I do not believe that, and many Conservative Members will agree with me.
On Second Reading I said that this was a squalid piece of Tory ideology of short-term advantage to few and long-term benefit to none. Despite sitting through 24 sittings in Committee, to which the Government made little contribution, and despite the arguments between Ministers and Opposition Members, I remain of that opinion.
We are undertaking a matter of no small importance. We are breaking up an organisation which has for no fewer than 40() years had a royal charter, granted by King Henry VIII, to serve Britain's defence industries. I am not a traditionalist, perhaps I am something of an iconoclast, but when one does something of that order without good reason, there is cause for anxiety.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) argued powerfully that the organisation has served our arms and defence systems magnificently, and the Minister agreed. We are breaking up an organisation which during that time has developed a sense of integration, and common purpose and aim with our defence forces. It is an integral part of the strength of Britain's defence forces. If we are to break it up, we must have good reasons for doing so, and therefore I shall examine the Government's reasons.
First, is it in line with the Government's policy of increasing competition? On this occasion and many others the Government have said that it is. They believe that if we increase competition we will provide a better service, greater output and a better product. All the evidence shows that when the organisation is sold it will be bought by other organisations already in the defence industry. Therefore, instead of more organisations providing the service to the Ministry of Defence, there will be fewer. We shall enlarge those organisations which are already involved, and, instead of increased competition, there will be less competition.
I was somewhat amused by the recent interesting amalgamation of the defence industry and entertainment, with the projected merger of Thorn-EMI and British Aerospace. Those who were members of the Committee will recall that people's experiences and professions played a great part in their contributions. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) brought to bear his considerable experience in the manufacture and marketing of items of ladies' underwear, while the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) was previously an insurance broker, and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) revealed himself as a merchant banker. It came to my attention that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), was at one time under contract

to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) as a cabaret act. It was not a song-and-dance act, but a rather tasteful and successful singing act. One wonders whether this interesting new amalgamation of defence and entertainment is at least partly his doing. However, the chances of the entertainment industry buying out the ROFs are rather slim.
The result of the privatisation will be fewer employees and less competition, not more, as the Government hope. What other reasons can there be? Perhaps the change will provide better value for money. I must doubt that, because, as the Minister agreed, no less than 38 per cent. of ROF production goes overseas. Therefore, one must assume that the ROFs are already competitive. If they did not provide reasonable value for money now, they would not enjoy such success abroad. The evidence is to the contrary: the ROFs continue to serve our defence forces effectively, and they enjoy a large overseas market.
Perhaps the ROFs are considered to be a burden on the taxpayer. Again, the contrary is the case. Since 1974 the ROFs have made £140 million of profits, of which between £45 million and £47 million passed direct to the Treasury. Rather than being a cost to the taxpayer and an enterprise that might be hived off to the private sector, the ROFs have made a significant contribution to the Treasury.
Is it said that the ROFs are lacking in efficiency? The facts point in the opposite direction. In the ROFs, value added per employee increased from £5,900 in 1976 to £7,500 in 1981. If the rest of British industry had managed to improve its value added per employee along those lines, we would not be in our present difficulties. The Government have conceded that the ROFs are extremely efficient.
I was especially interested to hear the Minister say that the Government were not contradicting the Mallabar report, but were bringing it up to date. The hon. Member for Eccles said on Second Reading:
The Mallabar committee, following an in-depth study, said that one must stick with a royal ordnance factory-type of solution."— [Official Report, 16 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 51.]
That was the committee's conclusion, yet the Minister argues that by overturning that conclusion the Government are not contradicting it, but simply bringing it up to date. They are bringing it up to date, not to the commercial realities of the world, but to the ideology of the Government. Only in that sense can the Minister's proposals be considered as bringing the Mallabar report up to date.
Are the Government saying that when the ROFs are privatised they will provide a better service to the defence of the realm? The answer must be no. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Eccles, who said that senior officers, officers of middle rank and, indeed, men of other ranks, to whom I have spoken, view the Government's decision to privatise the royal ordnance factories with much anxiety. The Minister said that the ROFs make a magnificent contribution to the defence of the realm, and it is difficult to imagine how that can be improved under the present proposals.
Will privatisation improve the products? Again, one must assume not. There is no doubt that moving this section of the defence industry into an area where the primary concern must be the exercise of economics rather


than the exercise of the value and usefulness of the product might result in a deterioration of the product enjoyed by the services.
I agree that private defence firms are important and make a valuable contribution. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is smiling; no doubt he is thinking, as I am, about Westland Helicopters. I recognise that in a mixed economy private firms make a great contribution. However, the ROFs have established a standard of quality which other private firms must live up to. By turning over these vital factories to the private sector we might be in danger of diminishing that overall quality. ROFs have set standards of excellence which might not relate to the exigencies of providing an economic return for money. Therefore, it is possible that standards will be lowered.
Those can be the Government's only reasons for wishing to privatise the ROFs, but none of them stands up to inspection. What then will be the result of the privatisation? The integrity of our national defence effort will inevitably be damaged, because the Government are removing the essential and integral relationship between the ROFs and the services to which they provide equipment. Whatever the Minister might say to the contrary, there is no doubt that the morale of the ROF work force has been damaged by the proposals and that it will continue to be damaged. I was especially interested to hear the Minister agree that much work must be done to convince the work force that it will not suffer as a result of the Bill.
I understand from those to whom I have spoken in ROFs that they are uncertain about the future. We must recognise that many people enter the Civil Service, in some cases accepting lower wages than they could get outside, because they know that they have some job security. They are prepared to play one off against the other. Now they are worried about asset stripping, factories being bought and closed, the possibility of takeovers and the possibility of foreign involvement. We are all worried about that. The result is that our defences will, to some extent, be weaker after the Bill than they were before it. The Government will argue that, after two or three years, problems with the quality of the service, the product and morale of the work force will be overcome. However, for some time our defences are likely to be weaker.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde mentioned security, which is where the true nature of the Government's narrow-minded commitment to ideology shows. The party of law and order has reached a position where the Minister agreed that, in the final analysis, when the Ministry of Defence police are withdrawn from the factories, those who then seek to protect those factories and all the valuable targets to which the hon. Lady referred will not have access to arms; and that against a background of increasing terrorist capacity and threat. This must be of great importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House. A representative of my local police force believes that it is nonsense that, for instance, ROF Bridgwater must, in the ultimate line of defence, be protected by the Avon and Somerset constabulary.
I know of one place, which for obvious reasons I shall not name, where the policeman who might have to protect the royal ordnance factory against terrorist attacks is about

three quarters of an hour away, unarmed and alone in a village police station. Perhaps the Minister believes that our intelligence will be so good that we will be able to predict a terrorist attack on a royal ordnance factory. There is no evidence that, bearing in mind the Libyan siege and all the other recent occurrences, our intelligence is that good or ever will be.
The Minister and the hon. Member for South Ribble, who is not in his seat, said that the evidence does not support the need for arms and that they have been drawn to be used only once. I have said previously, but I tell the Minister again, that I am astonished that the Opposition have to tell the Government and a Minister in the Ministry of Defence of the value of deterrence. It is extraordinary. The Minister would not expect us to use the arguments in the cruise missile debate on Wednesday that we do not need cruise missiles because they have never been used. The point of having an armed police force and access to arms at the royal ordnance factories is that they will act as a deterrent and as a last line of defence. I am astonished that the Minister cannot see that and advances the arguments that he does.
I hope the Minister will reconsider the protection of the royal ordnance factories. I hope that those who protect them will have access to arms. If the Minister cannot withdraw his statement for reasons of face—one well understands why he may not be able to—I hope that when he replies to the debate he will tell us that before the royal ordnance factory protection is handed over to an unarmed, private security force he will bring the issue back before the House for a full debate so that we can assess the position.
If the Minister allows a private security force to take over the protection of the royal ordnance factories and does not allow it access to arms, it will not be long before he has to return to the House to explain—he will have a difficult time when he does—a major and perhaps even tragic terrorist incursion, with possible serious consequences for us all.
The Bill is a folly. It does not make economic sense. It will dismantle an old and respected institution which has served us well for over 400 years. It is likely to weaken the defence of our nation. If the Minister carries through his proposals for a private security force without access to arms, it is certain to make our society more dangerous. That is why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.

Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo: This measure has been presented as a clash of political dogma between advocates of the utter sanctity of public ownership and those who can find no place for that mode of operation. I hope that I fall in neither of those camps. The Bill is ultimately about jobs — security and prospects. It is on that point that I speak in support of the Bill.
I cannot speak for the other royal ordnance factories, but Nottingham, in full public ownership and Ministry of Defence control, has declined in recent years from about 2,000 employees to 1,100.
I could take the cosy way out and decline to support the measure and probably please a large percentage of the Nottinghamshire work force. I could sit tight and say nothing, and if it all went sour I could claim, "Well, it was


not me, Sir." I doubt whether either course would save one job or offer any prospect of improvement in the present position.
Present defence policies are unlikely to produce an improvement in the procurement of conventional arms. As has been said by one or two hon. Members, the policies of Her Majesty's Opposition would produce a substantial reduction. Left to their own devices, terminal decay would not he long delayed for the ROFs. It would not be long before someone was looking for amalgamations. That is what my constituents fear most.
That fear remains the same whether or not the Bill goes on to the statute book. There is the fear that if something is not done to obtain more work, someone will talk about an amalgamation. Privatisation will not increase that threat. I hope fervently that it will reduce it. My task and duty as a Member representing a constituency with a royal ordnance factory bang in the middle is to consider those fears to see whether they are real and try to make a considered response. With its predominance in exports, I believe that the new framework that is being offered will allow management to go out and sell, not just what they make now but what I know their skills will enable them to make and sell and which perhaps is not currently within their remit.
I find it sad that the formal trade union response seems to ignore completely that new opportunity. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) sought to show that privatisation would loosen public control and that the quality of the product would therefore worsen. Some of my constituents work for Plessey or Thorn, and they would take great exception to the suggestion that their companies, executives and work forces are any less loyal to this country and less conscious of the quality of the product they make for the Ministry of Defence than the employees of the royal ordnance factories, of whom I make no criticism. The hon. Member for Eccles and other Opposition Members have sought throughout the debate to imply that only those people employed in the public sector have that sense of dedication and duty. I utterly challenge that argument.
The Opposition argument and trade union submission to Members on both sides has been that the royal ordnance factories are not allowed to refuse an order regardless of its size or profitability. They suggest that no private company would provide such a unique service. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the private sector. That subject brought about a serious debate in Committee, but one which had some lightheartedness. It was on that subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) referred to a certain retail chain with a turnover of £2·5 billion a year which needs no lessons from anyone about quality. I was not going to mention the matter tonight, but as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to those unspeakable female garments, dare I say that for some the possession of panties is just as vital as the possession of ordnance for others.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Lady said it.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman said it as well as my hon. Friend.
It is suggested that a high-ranking officer—I do not know whether it is one or many — has said that competition will cost lives. I return again to the speech of

the hon. Member for Eccles. If competition costs lives, why do we purchase 90 or 96 per cent.—whichever it is—of our defence procurement from the private sector?

Mr. Pattie: It is 93 per cent.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is 93 per cent. We buy from the United States, arid I believe that this country has every reason to be grateful for the quality of some of its products used in the Falklands war. No one questioned the quality of those products. They are the products of a society dedicated to competition.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister described the new structure—the four subsidiaries and the holding company. Again, the Opposition have argued that that is somehow a false, weak approach and is liable to lead to disaster. As I said on Second Reading, if we were setting up from scratch a company as complex as the multiplicity of the ROFs I believe that we would conclude that it would be quite wrong to run it as a single management unit and that it clearly fell into three or four parts. We should want a main board to keep overall control, but there would be three or four clearly identifiable parts. For those parts to succeed — that is what this debate is all about—we would want a chief executive in charge of the components capable of making his own decisions without having to work his way through all the Civil Service jargon before being able to make the simplest decision. In my experience, in the brief time in which I have tried to deal with ROF Nottingham, I believe that the best thing to come out of the Bill will be the removal of all those constraints. If a managing director dealing with Nottingham arid Leeds can act in the best interests of those two units making complementary equipment, those two units will have a greater chance of success. Therefore, I welcome that structure and the appointment of four managing directors. I believe that that is what we should have done if we had been starting from scratch.
On terms and conditions, the trade union side has constantly suggested that there may be circumstances in which pensions could not be fully index linked. That is probably true, but I can think of only one circumstance in which it might happen—in the event, heaven forbid, of a Labour Government who would let inflation rip and thus destroy the foundations of the schemes to be approved today.
A further unjustifiable criticism has been levelled against the Minister. On Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage we said that we had an absolute duty to do the best that we could for existing employees. I believe that we have done our very best to deliver that pledge. I see no conflict in making provision for people who have already given their lives to the ROFs in terms of pensions and redundancy provisions, but telling people who join ROF plc in the future that they will enjoy no more than the terms that they would obtain elsewhere in private industry. The two-tier system does not worry me. My main concern was the duty of the House to those who had given their lives to the existing ROFs. I believe that we have delivered that pledge.
Therefore, not because I believe it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread—no one has a crystal ball to see that far into the future—but because I believe that, with the current problems of defence procurement, this is


probably the greatest hope and promise of a reasonable future that we can offer the 20,000 employees, I hope that the Bill will be passed.

Mr. Peter Pike: When the Minister opened the debate, I hoped that he would give some reason for the Government's wish to proceed with privatisation or, better still, that after his visit to my constituency last Friday, of which I read in the press at the weekend, he had returned a wiser man and had changed his mind about the Bill. Unfortunately, he has neither changed his mind nor produced one good reason for privatisation.
When the Minister opened the debate on 16 January he seemed to be making the case for public ownership rather than for privatisation. He said:
The present organisation and its antecedents have served this country well for nearly 400 years, through the Napoleonic wars, the two world wars, the recent Falkland Islands conflict, and now, in times of peace, in the development of the most up-to-date equipment to meet an increasingly sophisticated threat.
As we all know, whatever their peace-time features, the ROFs have always been able to step up production at times of crisis to meet the needs of the nation.
The Minister continued:
Other countries have taken a keen interest in purchasing the ROFs' high-quality products. We wish this record to continue, subject of course to the control which the Government exercise over all arms sales abroad.
Today, as in the past, the ROFs are staffed by a loyal and dedicated work force numbering just under 18,500. Their efforts have made the organisation a success not only in terms of the quality of its products, which are second to none in the world, but in its trading performance."—[Official Report, 16 January 1984; Vol. 52. c. 26.]
At no stage on Second Reading or in the 24 sittings of the Standing Committee was there any criticism of the ROFs in their present form. On every occasion the staff were described as doing a good job and their efforts as praiseworthy. Like the Minister of State, I was impressed by the fact that in Blackburn and elsewhere in many cases three generations of the same family have served in the ROF structure. That is the kind of loyalty that people have to the organisation.
The record of the ROFs on productivity, profitability and every other criterion by which a private enterprise company would judge its performance has been extremely good. The trading profit last year was £68·8 million, making a total of £270 million since 1974 when the trading fund was established. The forecast for the coming year is £50 million profit. Last year, sales exceeded £448 million and exports accounted for 40 per cent. of sales. The ROFs are naturally proud to have won two Queen's Awards for Exports. That is an excellent record of achievement, not a case for public ownership.

Mr. John Golding: It may have been a slip of the tongue, but my hon. Friend said that this record was not a case for public ownership. I am sure that he meant privatisation. This is a case for public ownership, and I am sure that my hon. Friend fully agrees with that.

Mr. Pike: I certainly do. It was a slip of the tongue. My hon. Friend can be reassured that I am not in favour of privatisation. Indeed, there is a strong case for the ROFs remaining in public ownership.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred a letter to the Minister on behalf of a constituent, a Mr. Shotter, and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) referred a similar letter to the Minister. In his reply the Minister said:
I can tell that the purpose of the Government's privatisation policy is to increase competition within the defence industry. Following the establishment of the Royal Ordnance Factories as an independent commercial organisation under the Companies Act, the Government will hold all the issued shares. The new organisation will trade as a wholly Government-owned entity until such time as private capital is introduced. No decisions have yet been taken as to when this will be, or by what means it will be achieved. Much depends on the kind of track record which the ROFs can establish for themselves in the initial period of trading in the private sector.
Then comes the important point:
However, to split up the organisation into its constituent parts and sell each one off separately to existing firms within the defence industry would be unlikely to lead to that greater degree of competition which it is the Government's purpose to ensure." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 February 1984; c. 103.]
The retention of part of the industry in public ownership would ensure that there is competition with the private sector. To put the lot into private enterprise will remove an element of competition, not increase it. Therefore, the Government's own objective is very much defeated by what is proposed.
The Minister has told us that the Government's preferred option is to invite capital at a later stage through the holding company. That important point should be remembered, because it seems that the Government wish not to sell off individual sections, but to ensure that the ROFs will remain a separate entity. If that is the preferred option, it should have been clearly laid down in the Bill. Had that been established at the start, the Government might have been able to make a case for the ROFs becoming a plc. However, they have not moved sufficiently to prove the case for privatisation.
Five options were considered by Strathcona, three of which were considered viable and the other two were discounted. The first three options were:

"An evolved trading fund; 
Disposal to private industry; 
Creation of a Companies Act structure".
The Bill moves towards three, and ultimately two, of the options recommended by Strathcona. But that report also said that any proposed change should be "broadly acceptable" to the ROF work force. That is important, because it is clear that the proposal that the Government are now pursuing is not acceptable to the employees. For that important reason, we should oppose Third Reading.
If the Government sincerely believe that privatisation should not be to the detriment of the employees, they should have accepted Opposition amendments moved in Committee and on Report that would have guaranteed such safeguards. We would have felt much happier, as would the employees, and that would have assured the House that the Government were sincere in their intention that privatisation would not be detrimental.

Mr. Tom Sackville: Several Labour Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), asked why it was necessary to transfer the ROFs into the private sector in view of their record, their profitability, their skilled and loyal work force, their dedication in the past and their good service to this country and our armed forces.
That question is based on the premise that the ROFs are being transferred simply to punish them unjustly. The suggestion behind the question is, "The child has been good, why must it be punished?" However, the transfer of a business into the private sector cannot be viewed in that way. There is no evidence to justify doing so, and, indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. For example, British Aerospace at Lostock in my constituency was transferred into the private sector only a few years ago, and has gone from strength to strength ever since. At present, its shares stand at about twice the issue price of only a few years ago. That is testimony to its success.
The assumption is that if such a great change is made everything will be mined. It is assumed that nothing will improve as a result of change and that if things are good now they can only get worse. That is clearly a very negative view, and it is also entirely mistaken. Let us examine the proposition that the profitability or commercial success of the ROFs will be impaired. They are profitable, although in terms of their turnover they are not particularly profitable as commercial companies go. But then they should be profitable. The sector in which the ROFs operate is unfortunately one of the few assured growth sectors of recent years. Unfortunately from a world standpoint, there is a growing and wide demand for armaments and munitions, including those made by the ROFs. There is every reason why they should be a thriving and expanding business and why they should be profitable.
It has been suggested quite wrongly that because the ROFs are already exporting, they are efficient and no further improvements can be made. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made the rather questionable assertion that, because a certain percentage of production is exported, the ROFs must already be as competitive as they could he in world markets. The idea that they could not be more profitable or competitive through privatisation is quite mistaken, as events will no doubt prove.
Opposition Members have also made the very questionable assertion that privatisation will somehow alter the whole relationship of the Ministry of Defence with its suppliers. As has been said, more than 95 per cent. of the Ministry of Defence's procurement comes from the private sector. It is strange to assert that suddenly altering the ownership of the ROFs will somehow have an enormous effect on the Ministry of Defence's attitude to its suppliers. The system between the Ministry of Defence and its private sector suppliers works extremely well now, and will continue to do so when they are joined by the ROFs.
It has also been quite erroneously stated that, because the ROFs are to be encouraged to export more in future, they will be exporting second or perhaps—as the right hon. Member for Llanelli said—even third-rate goods to our overseas customers. That is a very odd idea, and it is a slur on the hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of men and women who work in our export defence industries. They export first-rate goods to our customers overseas.
It has also been suggested that once the present very close link between the Minister of Defence and the ROFs is ended, the procurement executive will somehow go and buy second-rate cheaper, foreign goods. There is no evidence to suggest that it would do so. I have no doubt that the ROFs can continue to be as efficient—and even

more efficient—than at present, and will present the procurement executive of the Ministry of Defence with the right goods at the right price.
All that is fairly self-evident. What really interests me is the continuing campaign based upon misinformation and the intimidation of those who work at royal ordnance factories, including several of my constituents who work at Patricroft and Chorley. They have been told repeatedly by Labour Members and certain trade unionists that what is proposed in the Bill will ruin their job prospects and their rights. A shameless attempt is being made to oppose Government legislation, using the fears of people who work in the ROFs.
I make it clear to my constituents and to all the others who work in ROFs that they have nothing to fear from this measure. Their future is not threatened, but is made brighter by all the opportunities that the measure opens up.
As I see it, the future of ROFs can be threatened in only two ways. The first is if the Government decide to featherbed ROF suppliers by preferential treatment, and to insulate them from the real world of competition. That will always result in cuts and more money being spent on defence equipment than is needed, and featherbedded suppliers will undoubtedly suffer.
The second way that ROFs could suffer is if, by chance, the Labour party came to power. It has made it clear that it intends to make major cuts in defence expenditure. The ROFs have continued to prosper in the past few years because this Government have spent a proper amount on defence. That will continue to be Government policy. I have no doubt that ROFs will continue to prosper as a result.

Mr. Bruce George: I had not intended to comment adversely on the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), but some of his comments deserve a response. He talked about a campaign of misinformation and intimidation at ordnance factories. He talked of a shameless attempt at exploiting fear. He was talking about the exercise of legitimate trade union activity in ordnance factories. For the hon. Gentleman to use such language to describe legitimate campaigning is unfair. If he feels so strongly about intimidation, he should have opened his mouth in Committee and not kept his remarks until 45 minutes before the end of the Bill's proceedings. The trade unionists who worked closely with Opposition Members put forward an excellent case, which has not been refuted. The comments of the hon. Member for Bolton, West did not refute their argument for ordnance factories remaining within the public sector.
At a time when the Government should be addressing their limited abilities to resolving other defence problems, such as the cessation of relations between the Soviet Union and the United States, procurement policies and intra-Alliance tensions, it is ironic and sad that they are concerned with such a small unnecessary Bill.
It has been said time and again that ordnance factories are not involved in the commanding heights of the economy. They involve about 7 per cent. of armaments production. I believe in a mixed economy, and a mixed economy in defence. I believe in a public sector defence system working alongside the private sector in defence. The Government want to obliterate the public sector in defence production. Perhaps I am being naive and idealistic, but the production of weapons of war and mass


destruction should inherently be within the public sector—at least 7 per cent. of it. To wipe out the public sector in armament production, where it has been involved not just for a century, but through a lineal descent from the 13th century to the ordnance factories of the day, will be to turn aside many centuries of public control of armament production. It is being done in the name of dogma—dogma is prevailing over reason.
In Committee we said time and again that the work force was unanimously opposed to privatisation. Ministers have gone round the country with their double act—almost Bonnie and Clyde—and been given short shrift by the majority of the work force.. The measure is being put through against their wishes. We have been told how production has become profitable and efficient. Government reports commissioned to analyse the future of the ROFs have said that they are capable of improvement within the existing framework. The ROFs have a proven record in war. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) may eulogise about the private sector during the Falklands war, but he should look at some of the correspondence from the Ministry of Defence to the ROFs, complimenting them on what they did during that conflict.
The Bill is a package which neatly groups together the companies. We know full well the purpose of the 24 Committee sittings — it was to prepare an attractive package which could be sold to the highest bidders. Already the wolves are gathering. Rumours are circulating of companies wanting the more profitable sectors of the ROFs. From the integrated structure will be stripped the profitable sectors, leaving only the less profitable, which will wither and die. That will be the end of the ROFs, other than the highly profitable sectors.
We were told last week that somehow the MOD police would train a new ROF mark 2 police force. The MOD police are already overstretched. They are involved not only in their duties in their own ordnance factories, but they must provide staff to police military installations in response to demonstrations. There is definitely a correlation between the low level of staffing in the ordnance factories, which have been stripped of their MOD police, and the potential rate of crime.
We are now being told that the overstretched MOD police will take on the task of training, from scratch, a new private police force. I hope that the Minister has given some thought to that. There is no scope within that organisation to devote the proper time to deal with the adequate training of a new private police force, unless the Minister wants, as I suspect, the most cursory training programme, which will produce an inadequate security force. As I have said many times, it will be a soft touch for anyone wishing to plunder the armaments in the ordnance factories.
I was privileged to participate in the Committee proceedings, and a few interesting aspects came out in Committee. We have often heard about the Labour party's opposition to certain matters. In Committee we heard the Labour party being positive on one aspect of defence—the ROFs. I suggest that the Government introduce more legislation, and there will be a more positive response from the Labour party to other areas of defence. The Minister can rush out and propose new Bills to his heart's content.
I Want to issue a warning—not a threat. There are people in this House with expertise in defence, but in another place there are people with far greater expertise. They include men who have served in the armed forces, such as ex-chiefs of defence staff. I hope that they have been following the proceedings in this House.
I hope that when the House of Lords looks at this superfluous legislation, which in many ways is vindictive, it will do what it sometimes does better than us—oppose the enlarged majority in the House of Commons which has pushed through, albeit legitimately, desperately unnecessary legislation. If the Lords and the ex-chiefs of defence staff do their job properly, the Government may have more trouble in the other place than, regrettably, they have had in this.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am glad that you called me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I intend to make only a brief contribution to the debate. I feel rather like the Lone Ranger on the Conservative Benches, but I intend to stick to my guns. As many hon. Members who have followed the passage of this legislation through the House will remember, I made a speech on 16 January on Second Reading. I was here last week and listened carefully to the debate on Report. However, I was not on the Committee and so was not able to listen to the blow-by-blow account of the things that went on there. Although I have listened carefully to all these debates, I have not yet changed my mind.
Most of us are realists and will understand that the legislation will go through and will go on to the other place. I hope that their Lordships will look at it with fresh eyes. In the meantime, one or two other points remain to be made.
I have two vested interests. First, I have in my constituency Radway Green, which is the biggest 'single employer and a very successful small arms manufacturing company that is part of the ROFs. Many of the employees there have been in touch with me during the passage of this legislation. My other vested interest is that I have a son in the British Army, and naturally I am concerned about the high quality of the safe and reliable products provided for the three armed services over the years by the ROFs.
Three points have arisen from the debates that we have had in the House. The first, which I mentioned on 16 January, relates to security and the Ministry of Defence police. That matter has been aired by hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening. We had an unfortunate incident at Radway Green connected with internal security, which is at the moment sub judice and therefore I cannot comment on it. Many of us are concerned about the possibility of terrorist attack and about security in the future. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister decided to look at this problem again. I hope that when he sums up he will give further assurances that, post vesting day and the setting up of the new company, security will be absolutely assured. This is an important point.
My second point is about the pay and conditions of the people who have been working for many years in the ROFs. I am not concerned about the new entrants who will join the company post privatisation, because they will have a new contract and will know what it is and can either work or not for the company. However, many people have worked for a long time, with service of 30 or 40 years, in


the ROFs and therefore the Civil Service. I hope that the Minister will go even further than he has and assure those people, who are most fearful for their pay and conditions, and especially pensions, in the future. I hope that there will be no detriment to them on pensions and that the talks that he is having with the trade unions will have a favourable outcome.
Another point that was discusssed on Report concerns the time when the companies are floated and the public will be able to buy into them. I am pleased that the employees will be able to buy shares at favourable rates, but at the same time there should be a limitation on foreign ownership. I was equally concerned that parts of the defence industry could fall into the hands of foreign owners. There are many multinational companies, trading under British names in this country, that I would not like to see own a great part of Royal Ordnance Factories plc. I do not need to name names. I am sure that many hon. Members will know those firms, which have been tremendous asset strippers. They have plonked vast amounts of capital in the banks and shifted money from one place to another to get the maximum interest; they have not invested it in manufacturing companies in this country and have not helped employment one little bit. I should not like that to happen when the ROFs go private.
The legislation is inevitable. I am sure that most of us realise that. I shall stick to my guns and not support the Government — most reluctantly, but basically for the reasons that I gave on 16 January. I do not believe that the legislation is in the best national interest. I do not believe for one moment that it is necessary. I cannot understand why the Government have given so much valuable parliamentary time to it, when we have so many other more important problems to deal with and to solve. I cannot understand why this small matter has been tackled in the way that it has.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) started with a quotation, I shall end with one by Oscar Wilde. I hope that the Government are not one
who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Mr. John Golding: The Bill is an abomination. Why are the ROFs being privatised? Not because they are inefficient — Ministers have constantly praised them for their efficiency. Not because they are unprofitable — they have made £270 million since 1974. Not because they have failed in the export market—they have won two Queen's awards. They are being privatised solely because of political dogma, because the Prime Minister's philosophy, blind and without justification, is that private enterprise is best, and because of her irrational hatred of civil servants. That is why the ROFs are being pinched, filched and stolen from the public by the Government. There is no rhyme or reason for it.
I have studied the Committee reports carefully. It is clear that the situation is the same as it was for the Telecommunications Bill. Two junior Tory Ministers did their best with a bad Bill that they, in their heart of hearts, did not support. They suffered the indignity—day in, day out—of presenting bad arguments. Why? Because their Secretary of State was kowtowing to the Prime

Minister. Bluntly, the Ministers did not seem to know what they were doing. If they were tried for offences against the State they would be found guilty, but insane.
The Bill is insane. For hundreds of years the ROFs have served Britain well, making the weapons of war efficiently and to a high quality, without anyone making enormous profits. All the profit has been made for the country. The workers have been loyal and hardworking. For most of the time they have been badly paid, but they put up with the low pay because of the relative job security and the pension at the end.
Now the Prime Minister has a touch of the DPs—dogmatic privatisation. What will be the consequences? The brief from the Transport and General Workers Union sums it up well:
It will damage Britain's defence, lead to a financial loss for the Government and the taxpayer, endanger the future of a profitable and successful organisation of over 300 years standing, damage the future jobs and conditions of the workforce.
Having studied the reports of the Committee stage, I congratulate the Labour Opposition on the case that they presented. I congratulate them on behalf of our armed forces, the workers in the industry and, above all, the British people. In particular, I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). After serving on the Telecommunications Bill Committee, he went straight on to the Committee on the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill to make sure that our concern for Radway Green was expressed. I hope that after the Finance Bill has been dealt with he will be given a day off, or perhaps half a day off, so that he can get his breath.
The importance of this change for the Army is well summed up in a paragraph of the union briefing. A high-ranking army officer has voiced the concern of the armed forces. He has told the unions that "competition will cost lives". He has accused the Government of wanting to compel the Army to buy the cheapest in the market. He says:
We can buy cheaper. But the failure rate will multiply tenfold".
That is not our view; that is the view of the Army.
Privatisation will not only cost lives; it will also cost the taxpayer money. It appears that the factories may be sold off at a loss. The Secretary of State underlined the dogmatic basis of the Bill when he said that any gain for the public purse would be purely incidental.
That is a scandal. The Government are selling off at a loss a profitable firm which has won the Queen's award. Is that businesslike? Would any other Government in the world sell off such a fine concern at a loss? It does not make sense. It is dogma gone mad.
Who will suffer? Members of the armed forces will suffer—their spokesman has said that the Bill will cost lives—and the staff will lose their livelihoods. The staff have been loyal and hardworking, and in return their jobs and pensions are to be jeopardised. The ending of the preferred source policy, and the policy of break-up and sale, are both threats to job security. If anything is clear, it is that the Bill has brought great insecurity to the staff. The Labour party did not have to make that clear to the staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will agree that it was the workers of Radway Green who made it clear to us—and to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). They saw the danger.
The fact that Ministers have failed to give adequate assurances is appalling, and so is their attitude to pensions


and to index-linking. The pensions have been paid for by years of low wages. Those civil servants are entitled to their historic rights, and to redundancy payments for loss of Civil Service status. They are entitled to a continuation of the conditions that they have in the Civil Service.
The Bill threatens lives and livelihoods and is based on the politics of dogma. The Government may well live to regret it.

Mr. Mark Fisher: In Committee, on Report and today, Opposition Members, with the support of some courageous Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), have shown that the Government's case is wrong for Britain's defence, for workers in the ROFs and for security.
As I believe that we have established the wrongness of what the Government are doing, I should like to deal with its financial sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said that he fears that there will be a loss. He is undoubtedly right, and I wish that he had been a member of the Committee so that he could have pursued the point with us. The figures show that a loss is almost certain. In an unguarded moment, the chairman of the ROFs valued the company at £300 million. The Minister of State has been trying to avoid that figure ever since it was set. Nevertheless, the company's book value is £456 million and that does not include good will.
There is a distinct fear, if not certainty, in many people's minds that the Government are giving away control of public assets worth £450 million in the book in return, if they sell only 51 per cent. of the company, as was the case with British Telecom, for a probable £150 million. The Government tell us that the cost of such action and making good the pension fund will be £250 million, so there will be a cash loss of £100 million. For that sum the Government will have lost control and effectively given away £250 million worth of public assets that have been paid for with taxpayers' money. That is why valuation is so important. The Treasury should note that, far from contributing to the £2 billion that the Chancellor put into the public expenditure White Paper as asset sales for the year, this asset sale will almost certainly cost the Treasury money. That is nonsense.
In Committee we pushed the point on valuation and repeatedly asked the Government for the basis of their valuation. Eventually, the Under-Secretary said that the valuation had been made on the basis of usefulness to the new company. I hope that the City, the Treasury, Coopers and Lybrand, the Property Services Agency, Customs and Excise and everyone else understand the theory of usefulness. It is not historic cost or current cost or the price-earnings ratio, but the wholly specious theory of usefulness. The Under-Secretary had to live with that slip throughout Committee stage and has not been allowed to get away with it. It is appalling for the Government to value public assets on such a subjective and insubstantial basis. I hope that the Under-Secretary will present a more substantial method of valuing the shares tonight.
It is not just valuation on which the Government are so hopelessly shaky. The Under-Secretary is looking down at his wholly inadequate brief. This is not a case of

presentation. We know that there is to be a new balance sheet. Can the Under-Secretary tell us what the depreciation policy will be? Will it be the same as that under which the ROFs have worked for the past few years or, like British Telecom, will the Government suddenly produce out of the hat a completely new one? A few weeks ago we learnt that BT's new depreciation policy had knocked £993 million off the company's value, even after a 24 per cent. increase in depreciation the year before. Will the Under-Secretary juggle with the figures with the ROFs as well? In the new balance sheet that he has announced, will he set out what loans will appear to the Government and what form they will be in? Will they be debentures or non-voting preference stock? What will be the equity debt ratio and when will the Secretary of State make a statement? If, like BT, there is to be a 1:1 equity debt ratio, it will be extremely unattractive and, unlike BT, the ROFs do not have the attraction of being a new technology industry.
I hope that the Secretary of State, the Minister of State or the Under-Secretary will make a statement soon, because the House has a right to know. That is why we have tried to ensure that the House receives such statements as, otherwise, public money will be thrown away by a thoroughly bad Bill. This is an enabling Bill and the Minister of State had the cheek to say when opening today's debate that, through the Bill, control of the ROFs will be in their own hands. That is nonsense, and he knows it. He knows that the Bill means selling off the factories and therefore control passing to whoever buys them. This is a disastrous Bill, not only for the defence of this country and our future, but for the Government's financial and economic policies.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on making a brave statement for a new Member. Having been in a similar position in the past, I can assure the hon. Lady that she may be certain of her reward in the future, but it will only be on the Opposition Front Bench.
This is a miserable little Bill. The case against it was argued forcibly by the Minister of State on Second Reading. He outlined fully the reasons why the ROFs should not be privatised. He pointed out their distinguished history, their profitability, their ability to meet the needs of the armed services, the fact that they have never failed the nation, the quality of their products and the dedication of their workers. Yet he went on to suggest that, in some strange way, the Government would improve on a highly successful and competitive publicly owned organisation by putting it on to the private market and bringing in private capital.
If, as we believe, the Minister of State's logic is turned upside down by his decision, we have to look elsewhere for the real reasons for the denationalisation of the royal ordnance factories. We find them not so much in the factories as in the ideology of the Government and their determination to turn anything that makes a profit in the public sector over to their friends in the City and elsewhere.
If the efficiency of the ROFs is good, their profits are secure, innovation is present and the armed forces have a guaranteed supply of essential services, why should it be necessary to go through the ritual of privatisation? The


answer must lie in the character of the Secretary of State and his determination and ambition to prove his mettle to the new intake of Tory Members.
The right hon. Gentleman seeks to improve his reputation with the arids and ideologues, as he tried in Liverpool to improve his position with the wets in his party. He will seek to do that by cutting the Civil Service. With this one Bill, he gets rid of 18,500 civil servants at a vote. Of course, those people will still be there and will have to be paid by the new ROF plc, but the right hon. Gentleman has met the demands of his political mistress. He has cut the number of civil servants in his Ministry —18,500 civil servants on a platter for a new political Salome. However, those civil servants will be not less of a cost to the Ministry but an increased cost. Every private firm that employs those civil servants and the new ROF plc which maintains them in their present jobs will seek an additional profit from the Minister.
We do not have to look far for other reasons for the Secretary of State's keenness to privatise the ROFs. One is to reward the Conservative party's friends and supporters in the City. That is what it is all about. The Government are not quite certain how to do that, but this is one way that they have chosen.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman think that no union pension fund will buy shares in the new company in the foreseeable future?

Mr. McNamara: I have no idea because I do not control the policies of the unions' pension funds. I know what the courts have said and I know, too, that unions that have wanted to decide where their pension funds are invested have been stopped from doing so. I have in mind the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board's pension scheme. The unions do not have a veto over where they invest and the hon. Gentleman knows that.
There are rich pickings for the Government's select group of friends. What happened when Amersham International, Associated British Ports, British Aerospace, Britoil, Cable and Wireless and the National Freight Company were nationalised? Seven firms of primary underwriters and financial advisers, three firms of legal advisers and six firms of stockbrokers received in fees and commission a total of £22,694,000. Those were the rich pickings of the Government's City friends. That is what the selling of public undertakings to private companies is all about. The Government are rewarding their friends and supporters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has asked, which group within the charmed circle of only 16 firms will be privileged to float the royal ordnance factories? Which solicitors will be involved? Which firm of underwriters will enjoy all the rich pickings in the City? The Government's City friends are interested in trying to make money out of the flotation, and that is what this is all about. This is a measure that is designed to further the Government's interests and those of their friends who supported them in the general election.
The producers of wealth will not enjoy the rich pickings. They will be enjoyed by those who batten down the producers, and they are the Government's City friends. In previous flotations 16 firms have received over £22 million in fees and commissions. There was not much

distribution on those occasions. There was little distribution to the Conservative party's property-owning democracy. Will the Government choose to break the charmed circle of 16 firms?
Despite the platitudes of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), we have not been told what percentage of shares will go to the work force. It is certain that there will not be public ownership or worker ownership. We know that the shares will go outside the factories.
What protection will exist to prevent the ROFs being taken into the ownership of their competitors? We have all read the Secretary of State's letter in which he states that it would not be his intention to privatise the ROFs if he felt that they would end up in the hands of their competitors, but how can he guarantee that that will not happen? Once we have a plc on the market, how can he guarantee that the factories' rivals will not appear on the scene? How can he say that some show-biz company will take them over in the way that Thorn-EMI has taken over British Aerospace? We shall probably have Billy Smart's circus taking over the ROFs. That is the way in which the Government are behaving by allowing privatisation to go ahead.
What have the Government promised the loyal and dedicated work force of the ROFs? What has been offered to these much appreciated workers? The Government achieved what Hitler, Kaiser Bill, Louis XIV or even Philip II of Spain failed to realise, for they brought out on strike all the ROF workers on the same day in protest against what is being done to their terms and conditions of employment and to their standard of living. That was their reaction to the threat that the Government are posing to national security.
We find on Third Reading that all the Government's commitments to the work force have been completely dishonoured. After five months of debate there has been no agreement on pensions or redundancy payments. The Government know that if they were to guarantee redundancy payments, the profit from the flotation would be even less. The Government have not, either in Committee or on Report, come forward with a guarantee so that we could go from this Third Reading with a clear, straightforward statement that there would be no detriment to the conditions of the people employed in the industry.
The major change in the Bill was the pressure which forced the Government to change their mind about security. I am not quite as worried as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about what will happen with an internal security force, because I do not believe that it will materialise. Not even this Government would be so foolish as to create opportunities for terrorists such as those suggested by that proposal.
For all the reasons that have been advocated since the day we first debated the Bill on 16 January to the present, on the grounds of organisation, efficiency and justice to the work force, but above all on the grounds of national security — something which the Government are continually prepared to squander—we oppose the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr., John Lee): We are drawing to the close of many hours of debate on the Bill from Second Reading, through 24 Committee sessions and Report stage to Third Reading. From the Opposition we


have had—it was amply demonstrated tonight by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) —the usual mix of sarcasm and exaggeration. On Second Reading the right hon. Member for Llanelli made a ludicrous and disgraceful attack on private defence companies. He did not do so tonight, but he made equally dismissive comments about our overseas military sales—the £2·5 billion worth of goods that we sell overseas, the 150,000 jobs that are involved in defence exports, and the 40 per cent. of ROF products that are sold overseas.
By contrast, the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) were models of balance, and I appreciate their support. The line of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has been consistent, and she has maintained the family tradition of independence.
Security was mentioned repeatedly this evening, as it was many times in Committee. Security is continually kept under review, and we acknowledge the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Significant improvements in security arrangements are being made, but I cannot go into precise details at this stage. On Report the House had a full debate on our new proposals for security arrangements at ROF sites. To reiterate our position, we have taken powers in the Bill to enable Ministry of Defence police to remain at ROF sites for as long as we consider it necessary. Parallel to that, the ROFs will set up a company guard force to take on the responsibility of guarding ROF sites where that is considered appropriate. Our eventual aim is to replace Ministry of Defence police with company guard personnel. That will, of course, depend upon an assessment of the threat at various sites.
Several detailed questions were asked about the organisation and training of the new company guard force. It is far too early to give full answers to those questions. The Ministry of Defence will liaise closely with the ROFs on recruiting and training such a guard force, with the aim of creating a reliable and efficient organisation.
Much has been made of the fact that Ministry of Defence police have access to arms. The new company guard force will not be armed, but security arrangements must be cleared with local police authorities and contingency plans will be made for civil police support, where necessary, on each site. As the House knows, the civil police can draw arms should the position so warrant it. Contingency plans will include the possible need to call upon armed police. As the new company guard force is built up during the coming months, liaison arrangements with existing MOD police guards will be worked out. I emphasise that MOD policemen will remain subject to the ultimate control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Foreign control has also been mentioned repeatedly during our debates. We have always made clear our intention that the new ROF companies should not come under foreign control. The best way to ensure that objective would be to have appropriate articles of association for the company once it ceases to be under

Government control. Accordingly, we have drawn up drafts, which were made available to the Standing Committee which examined the Bill.
The draft articles require the company to maintain a register of shares held by people who are not British citizens. They limit the number of these shares to 15 per cent. of the issued share capital of the company and provide for a special share to be held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Even after he has disposed of the bulk of his shareholding, it will give him the power of veto over any attempt to change the articles in question. It will also enable him to veto the share of any substantial part of the business which is more than 15 per cent. of the value of the business, or produces more than 15 per cent. of the profits. It will be open for consideration at the time whether the Secretary of State should exercise that power in the case of a projected sale to a British interest, but he would certainly do so to prevent a sale to a foreign interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked about the relationship between ROFs and International Military Services Ltd. Of the total IMS budget for 1984, ROF products account for approximately half the turnover, but less than 25 per cent. of the profits before tax. Most of that relates to the performance on contracts which were signed several years ago. On the new business budgeted for signature in 1984, ROF products represent only 25 per cent. of the contract value.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) asked about houses. My hon. Friend asked about farm tenancies. The rights of tenants will not be diminished and tenants whose houses are transferred to the company will enjoy all legal safeguards. The same applies to farm tenants. House properties that lie inside the ROFs' perimeters will be transferred to the company together with the houses that fall within the safeguarded areas at the explosives ROFs. Those unaffected by safeguarding will remain with the MOD, except where the company requires the house or land on which they stand. The details of that arrangement are being worked out, together with what consideration should be paid for the properties where they represent an asset to the company.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked about the valuation of the assets. As we made clear in Committee, it will not be possible to value every item of property and each right or liability which is to be transferred initially before vesting day. The precise identity of many of the assets cannot be ascertained until vesting day; for example, a large proportion of them in terms of value will consist of work in progress. Work is carried on in respect of such assets for the benefit of the trading fund until vesting day, and after vesting day for the benefit of the new company. It will therefore be necessary to make an inventory of these assets at vesting day, and only then can their precise value be ascertained. The same is true of some liabilities, such as payments due to suppliers.
During our proceedings right hon. and hon. Members have repeatedly and rightly referred to the long and distinguished history of the ROFs, the quality of their products and the loyalty, integrity and dedication of the work force at all levels. That must not prevent us from reviewing their structure and role in our evolving defence procurement strategy. The ROFs served our nation nobly in the past. Our proposals will ensure a strengthened


organisation. It will consist of a holding company with four subsidiaries, considerably enhanced managerial, research and marketing resources, greater flexibility in recruitment and salary levels and, assuming privatisation by flotation of the whole, will give employees a real opportunity for the first time to invest and participate in the company.
The ROFs have a bright future, but they cannot be above criticism or change. The Government would be failing in their duty if, in the search for greater competition and efficiency in defence spending, they preserved the sheltered position relative to other defence contractors which the ROFs have historically enjoyed.
I am confident that the royal ordnance factories will respond to the challenge and opportunities, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McNamara: Why, Mr. Speaker, will you now not give—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has sat down.

Mr. John Major: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. McNamara: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I humbly request information as to why hon. Members were not called to speak in the debate when there was still a minute of the allotted time to go?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had already spoken and therefore had exhausted his right to speak again. The Minister had sat down.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If an hon. Member who had not spoken had risen to intervene, of course I should have called him.

Mr. McNamara: If I had asked the leave of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member did not ask the leave of the House.

The House having divided: Ayes 244, Noes 172.

Division No. 309]
[10 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Berry, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Best, Keith


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bottomley, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baldry, Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Batiste, Spencer
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Bellingham, Henry
Bright, Graham





Brinton, Tim
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Holt, Richard


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hooson, Tom


Browne, John
Hordern, Peter


Bruinvels, Peter
Howard, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bulmer, Esmond
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Butterfill, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cash, William
Hunt, John (Ravensboume)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunter, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cockeram, Eric
Key, Robert


Colvin, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Coombs, Simon
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Cope, John
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David


Couchman, James
Lamont, Norman


Cranborne, Viscount
Lang, Ian


Crouch, David
Latham, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawler, Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lee, John (Pendle)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Eggar, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fallon, Michael
McCusker, Harold


Farr, John
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Maclean, David John


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Major, John


Forman, Nigel
Mather, Carol


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miscampbell, Norman


Franks, Cecil
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Freeman, Roger
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gale, Roger
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Murphy, Christopher


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neubert, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Newton, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Nicholls, Patrick


Gow, Ian
Onslow, Cranley


Gower, Sir Raymond
Osborn, Sir John


Greenway, Harry
Page, John (Harrow W)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Grist, Ian
Parris, Matthew


Ground, Patrick
Patten, John (Oxford)


Grylls, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Porter, Barry


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hanley, Jeremy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hannam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Rhodes James, Robert


Harvey, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hawksley, Warren
Rost, Peter


Hayes, J.
Rowe, Andrew


Hayhoe, Barney
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hayward, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Heddle, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Henderson, Barry
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)


Hickmet, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hill, James
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hind, Kenneth
Shersby, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Silvester, Fred






Sims, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thurnham, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tracey, Richard


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Trippier, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Speller, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spencer, Derek
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walden, George


Squire, Robin
Wall, Sir Patrick


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stern, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Warren, Kenneth


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stokes, John
Whitfield, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wilkinson, John


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Woodcock, Michael


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Terlezki, Stefan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Mr. David Hunt.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Conlan, Bernard


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Alton, David
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Ashdown, Paddy
Craigen, J. M.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Crowther, Stan


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bell, Stuart
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Benn, Tony
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Donald


Blair, Anthony
Dobson, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, Jack


Boyes, Roland
Douglas, Dick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Ellis, Raymond


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Ewing, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Faulds, Andrew


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fisher, Mark


Clay, Robert
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Forrester, John


Cohen, Harry
Foster, Derek


Coleman, Donald
Foulkes, George


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Fraser, J. (Norwood)





Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Freud, Clement
Nellist, David


Garrett, W. E.
O'Brien, William


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pavitt, Laurie


Golding, John
Pendry, Tom


Gourlay, Harry
Penhaligon, David


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pike, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Randall, Stuart


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Richardson, Ms Jo


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robertson, George


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Howells, Geraint
Rowlands, Ted


Hoyle, Douglas
Ryman, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Janner, Hon Greville
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Snape, Peter


Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ronald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Strang, Gavin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Straw, Jack


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Loyden, Edward
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


McGuire, Michael
Torney, Tom


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wallace, James


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McNamara, Kevin
Wareing, Robert


Madden, Max
Weetch, Ken


Marek, Dr John
White, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wigley, Dafydd


Martin, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wilson, Gordon


Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Meacher, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Meadowcroft, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, William



Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tellers for the Noes:


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. John McWilliam.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Lang.]

Orders of the Day — Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 451), dated 26th March 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be annulled.
The regulations put into effect the provisions of schedule 8 to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 for creating a unified social security and supplementary benefit appeals system. The Opposition have tabled this prayer because the whole area of social security adjudications is riddled with serious issues of injustice which will by no means be resolved by the regulations and will in some important ways be made worse.
We regret that organisations with direct experience of adjudication were not consulted before the regulations were published in their final form. The Secretary of State and the Council on Tribunals refused to allow outside organisations to see the regulations in draft form which is, of course, as hon. Members know, when influence can be genuinely exerted. Therefore, our first complaint is that we deplore this unnecessary and undesirable secrecy in decision making.
Indeed, the BMA has indicated that the Minister concerned admitted that, had not the opportunity for enabling legislation been presented by the existence of this "miscellaneous provisions" Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill, there would have been more consultation, and furthermore that the proroguing of the last Parliament curtailed anticipated debate. Senator Goldwater would no doubt say in such circumstances that that is really not the way to run a railroad. In our view, it is quite wrong that proper debate and consultation should be pre-empted by such accidental contingencies. That is one reason why we insist on a full debate tonight.
On the main substance of the regulations, we very much doubt whether either national insurance tribunal members or supplementary benefit tribunal members are yet in a position to cope properly with the amalgamation of the two systems. The truth is that there is, on the one side—I am sure that hon. Members will fully bear this out—a terrifying complexity to the supplementary benefit regulations. Indeed, the Minister is wont to put very large volumes before the House with, I think, 43 pages of indices, just to impress on us how complex they are. On the other side, there is a daunting plethora of legislation, covering the whole range of other benefits, alongside supplementary benefit and family income supplement.
Given that, the present position on training is clearly unsatisfactory. At present, tribunal members receive only a few days' training on benefits, and even that can take place after they have begun to sit on tribunals. So my first question is what extra training is being given to tribunal members to ensure not only that the present inadequate standards are substantially improved but that they can successfully manage the huge complexity of the extra duties being imposed on them by the regulations? What

ongoing training is to be provided to ensure that they keep up with what the House, even under this Government, ensures is a welter of changes in legislation, and social security commissioners' decisions?
There is another very disturbing aspect. It appears that the DHSS is sanctioning a limitation of access to primary legislation to the chairperson only. I understand that tribunal members have recently been told that they will not be issued with the supplementary benefit legislation, because the "chairperson will have it". That was the reason given. Is this, then, another cut, whereby the law relating to supplementary benefit and family income supplement, the so-called Yellow Book, and the law relating to all other social security benefits, the so-called Brown Books, are not made available to tribunal members? If so, how can tribunal members reach informed decisions without the legislation? That is an important question if we expect them to carry out their duties.
This is not a minor issue but an important principle, that other members of the tribunal are of equal status with the chairperson as adjudicators. It is surely vital that they retain the capability, based on informed knowledge, to outvote the chairperson if they so choose. I hope that the Minister agrees with that and that he will resolve the problem.
A third objection to the regulations is that they appear to consolidate a two-tier quality of decision making. Under section 100 of the Social Security Act 1975, the duty of insurance officers is to give written notice of their decision
and the reasons for it".
I stress the words
and the reasons for it".
A supplementary benefit officer, while being obliged to give a written decision, has been under no obligation to give reasons for it. Under regulation 68(6), a supplementary benefit claimant has the right to
a statement of the reasons",
but only if he or she applies for it within 28 days of a decision.
Why the distinction? Why is there not a requirement to provide a statement in each case? Supplementary benefit officers are notorious for reaching wrong decisions. A duty to give reasons for a decision would oblige adjudicators to show that their decision is in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Supplementary benefit tribunals have always been the slums of the English tribunal system. It is time that that distinction was removed.
Our fourth complaint involves another aspect of petty-minded cost saving which will worsen the adjudication process. The regulations permit a single adjudicating medical practitioner, rather than two doctors, to assess applicants for various social security and disablement benefits. I have no doubt that another cheese-paring exercise is involved, since it is difficult to find another reason. It will not work because it is a false economy. A claimant is more likely to appeal against a decision when one doctor rather than two is involved. There will be good reasons for appeals since an error of judgment is more likely when one doctor makes an assessment of the cause and degree of disablement. I hope that the Minister will reconsider.
How will the Secretary of State exercise his proposed discretion to direct that a particular claim shall be assessed by a two-doctor board rather than a single doctor, when the pre-medical board scrutiny by a Civil Service medical officer has been dispensed with and only lay people


undertake the task? The implication is that the Secretary of State will not be in a position to exercise such discretion and that claimants will be subject, willy-nilly, to assessment by a single doctor and their rights will thereby be less protected. Is that really what the Government intend? If they intend the Secretary of State to exercise such discretion, by what means will he do so under the regulations?
Our fifth objection to the regulations is that they place no explicit duty on adjudicating officers dealing with supplementary benefit to examine all a claimant's needs when a request is received for a weekly or single payment. Far from trying to ensure that claimants receive the full benefits to which they are entitled under the law, this Government have taken the unprecedented step, in response to one of the commissioner's decisions, of going out of their way to make it clear that the visiting officer has no such duty.
The whole point of the 1980 reforms of the supplementary benefit scheme, according to the DHSS, was that the legal entitlement would improve take up. That improved take up will happen only if claimants can rely on officers to inform them of their entitlement. The majority of claimants are not fully informed of their entitlement. Ministers are deliberately intervening on commissioners' decisions to ensure that they are not fully informed, contrary to all their rhetoric of four years ago. This is an important matter. If the Government are serious in their claim that they want people not only to be prevented from obtaining benefits to which they are not entitled—and the Government are hot on that—but that they obtain the benefits to which they are genuinely entitled, why do we have a regulation that makes that unlikely, if not almost impossible?
In addition to those five fundamental objections, there are a number of lesser, although still significant issues on the adjudication process. It is only by putting down the prayer that we have the opportunity to debate this important general issue.
Claimants have been known to have had to wait for up to a year before their appeal is heard—even for up to three months for a decision from the commissioner after the hearing. Does the Minister agree that such inordinately long delays are wholly unacceptable? If so, what will he do to reduce them?
We are disappointed that the regulations make no attempt to improve the rights to representation — something that we regard as extremely important. Indeed, some argue that the regulations actually limit the right. Will the Minister at least give an assurance that there is no intention to limit representation to one person? The one strand of the Bell report on tribunals, on which no action was taken in the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, was the expansion of advisory and representative facilities for claimants. That would have a dramatic effect on claimants' entitlements. The Government's record on their willingness to spend on behalf of claimants to pursue their entitlements shows why they have done nothing about that recommendation.
There is a change in regulation 19 from commissioners having to record their reasons for a decision simply to having to give grounds for their decisions. That may be purely a technicality, and if so the Minister can confirm that. However, we wonder whether it is not something

rather different—that by allowing a much less stringent and less detailed response from commissioners, the Government are placing a deliberate restriction on the rights of claimants to obtain redress. If that is so, we deplore it and want the regulation changed.
We believe that chairpersons should have a duty to take note of evidence as the tribunal hearing proceeds. It is wrong that, all too often, that task is left to the clerk of the tribunal, who is a DHSS employee. Carefully weighing up the evidence is a task that cannot be fairly carried out on the basis of a DHSS officer's notes.
Primary legislation in social security has become increasingly broad and vague. Acts are empty shells that the Minister is empowered to fill with the substance of law by the making of regulations. It is not simply that the Acts omit the details—they often omit the basic principles. The Social Security Act 1980 lays down the barest outline of the supplementay benefits scheme, and contains less detail than the 1976 Act that it replaces. When it was passed, hon. Members and interested organisations had little opportunity to debate or examine the new law in detail as most of the substance was left to the now voluminous regulations.
The Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, which gave birth to the present housing benefit scheme, is an even emptier shell. It simply provides that the Minister "may by regulation" make a scheme for local authorities relating to the grant of rent and rate rebates and allowances. Nothing could be vaguer than that. Everything is left to delegated legislation that can be speedily changed and that largely escapes the usual processes of consultation and debate.
These regulations are of the essence of the way that the supplementary benefit rules are administerd and applied to those on the poverty line. That is why this debate is important. I have given abundant evidence to show that there are major and fundamental objections to the way that the rules stand in these regulations. They aggravate several injustices in key parts of claimants' rights and are biased to obvious cost saving at the expense of real fairness and equity. For these reasons, I appeal to the House to reject the regulations so that they can be fully reconsidered and improved by the Government before they are finally passed.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I always listen with the greatest interest to the strong words of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I agree with him that this is an important subject that affects many millions of people and is of concern to every hon. Member. However, his words rang a little hollow, and it is rather a pity that, despite his great insistence on having a debate, he is backed by all of three hon. Members from his party, two of whom are sitting on the Front Bench with him. Even if he is concerned, it looks as though most other Labour Members are not, in which case one has to ask why we are here debating this subject on an Opposition prayer.
The new regulations are a considerable improvement, and are part of a substantial Government movement to improve the tribunals and the appeal system for supplementary benefit, pensions and the rest. To start with, there is now one set of tribunals instead of two. The national insurance tribunal and the supplementary benefit tribunal are merged into one, and that must be a great


improvement, particularly as many people are claiming both sets of benefits. It was a fiendishly complicated business before, and it is marginally better now.
The second change is the removal of the insistence that there must be a trade unionist on the tribunals. It will be a welcome replacement to have instead the insistence that people on the tribunal must have local knowledge—we all welcome that. On the Second Reading of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill, the Minister said that he would look as well at applications from people representing the disabled and other interest groups, to make sure that they were represented.
Another improvement will be what might be called beefing up the chairman, and he may have to be legally qualified. I am not legally qualified, and I wonder whether we are not replacing one set of restrictive practices—the need for a trade unionist—by another set of restrictive practices—the need for a lawyer. Anyone who has read through this lot of documents will agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who said that only lawyers will be able to understand them. I have been reading them all day, and if I understand one tenth of them, I feel that I have done well.
These regulations affect a large number of people. We spend £37 billion a year on supplementary benefits, pensions and so on. It has come to a pretty pass when the only people who can understand them properly are those with a legal background. We are talking about difficulties that are sometimes faced in times of great extremity by people at the edges of our society, such as the disabled. It is a tragedy that they cannot simply pick up these documents and figure out what they should do next, and that those who advise them, such as local councillors, do not understand what is being done to them and for them through the regulations, which are, after all, intended to be for their benefit.
In the Library, there are boxes full of advisory leaflets from organisations trying to explain to the disabled their entitlement. There should be a prize for clear English, and I hope that the DHSS will one day qualify for it, but the day has not yet come.
One of the Opposition's main complaints is the omission of the specific reference to trade union members, and this was raised in the other place by Lord Dean of Beswick. He asked that "sympathetic consideration" should be given to trade unionists
by way of their retaining rights
to serve on the tribunals
that have been granted in the past by successive Governments regarding this matter".
That sums up the attitude of the trade unionists in the Labour party. They are not interested in exercising the obligations to serve—they want to retain a right. That right often does not exist for the people who go to tribunals. I remember taking to a tribunal people who were seeking supplementary benefit because of industrial trouble in Birmingham. Their sheer anger when they found a trade unionist adjudicating was something to see. They felt strongly that in many cases people had lost their jobs—and that much of the livelihood of the city was in jeopardy—because of the activities of trade unionists of the sort that they then found facing them at the tribunal. There is a difference between a right to serve and an obligation to do something useful.
I was amused at the answer of the noble Lord Glenarthur, who said that

representation by trade union members is important: but so also is flexibility to overcome delays that have been caused by the shortage of trade union members in some cases." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 April 1984; Vol. 450, c. 597.]
That is one reason why it is a good thing to move away from trade unions.
Any of us who has ever dealt with any cases that go to tribunals—even in an area such as Derby, where the Department of Health and Social Security is extremely helpful and has done its utmost in any case that I have taken to it, for which I am grateful—knows that the delays cause a great deal of anxiety and anguish. We are dealing with people who are in difficulties and who are in trouble. Whatever the public image of people who have to go to tribunals, the fact is that many of them, particularly disabled people, are as genuine a case as one could ever find. The delay that occurs is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Those people normally have between 10 and 28 days to lodge appeals. There are four pages of schedules in the book on how long one has to lodge an appeal, ranging from 10 days to three months. I defy anyone to figure out which is the correct period for any particular case. That in itself would exercise a lawyer for a long time. In most cases, the maximum period is about 28 days. However, it takes an awful lot longer than 28 days to get a hearing, and longer than that to get an answer. It looks as if the situation is getting worse.
In reply to a question on 7 December 1983 about how long the completion of appeals at supplementary benefit tribunals was taking, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that in the three months to 30 June 1983, the average time from the lodgement of appeal to the date of the hearing by the supplementary benefit tribunal was 8·3 weeks. That is not a good record. On 6 March this year, The Prime Minister said in answer to a question that the time had gone up to 9·7 weeks in the three months ending 31 December 1983.
If those figures are correct, the period is getting longer. I accept that it might be because one period related to the summer, when there might be fewer appeals, and the other related to the winter, when there might be more appeals on heating and so on, but 9·7 weeks on average, for the whole country, cannot be accepted by any of us as reasonable. That is a very long time. We are talking about people who may have needed that money four or five months before. That is just the time to the hearing. It will take possibly several more weeks after that to get a reply from the tribunal, after which a decision has to be made about where to go from there.
Part X of the regulations refers to the mobility allowance adjudications. I have a little bit of special pleading to make, with which the Minister may be familiar. I have been chasing the DHSS at the highest levels since last December on application for mobility allowance by a family that includes two mentally handicapped children. I am well aware that the mentally handicapped can walk. Under the regulations, the rules say clearly that one gets mobility allowance if one can demonstrate a lack of ability to walk. To those who are managing mentally handicapped children, the ability to walk is irrelevant. The test that is applied is to ask the child to walk to the door and back, and the child can do that, but it may be impossible to get that child to undertake any independent transport.
The case with which I am concerned involves two mentally handicapped adults. They are in their twenties. A mobility allowance has been refused. The ability to walk is not a sufficient criterion. Regulation 53(d) refers to whether a person's
condition will be such as permits him from time to time to benefit from enhanced facilities for locomotion".
If ever there was a definition of a form of assistance that would be extremely useful to the mentally handicapped and their families, that is it.
I believe that the Secretary of State's reviews of disablement and benefits are considering the mentally handicapped. I hope that the inclusion of the mentally handicapped among those who qualify for mobility allowance, as they already qualify for attendance allowance, will be considered.
The new regulations are a great improvement, but I hope that it will be understood that changing the structure is not enough by itself. We need to consider the results. My hon. Friend will support my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in changing the structure, but if he could reduce the delays to a period that we would all regard as reasonable, and make the regulations such as could be understood by all and the whole system more human, he would receive the accolade of the entire House.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: This is a very important subject. It affects more and more of our constituents as, over the months and years, more and more people require welfare benefit.
I echo the plea of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) for more coherent and more easily understandable regulations. Like her, I have spent much of the day trying to make sense of the regulations. In spite of the fact that I have a legal qualification, I have not made much more sense of them than the hon. Lady has. She and I are accustomed to perusing regulations, and, I hate to think what the average claimant would make of them in their present form.
In the late 1970s and the early 1980s there was a widespread view that there was a need for rationalisation of the social security system. Experts such as David Donnison took the view that rationalisation was necessary to prevent the collapse of the system, and at that stage I was prepared to be guided by their views, but having studied the regulations I have to conclude that the reality does not measure up to the hopes and aspirations expressed at that time.
I do not necessarily take as rigid a view as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I think that the regulations are defective, and I do not support them, but I think that the Minister has a tremendously difficult job. He is trying to rationalise the two systems and to bring supplementary benefit into line with the national insurance regulations of the past.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West was absolutely right about the need for consultation. The Government are taking a great risk—they are quite wrong—in bringing in these regulations, which apply from 23 April, without falling over backwards to make sure that all who are in the front line are given a full say. The Minister could not put his hand on his heart and say that he has done that. In the fullness of time that will prove to have been a mistake.
My local constituency experience and my discussions with pressure groups suggest that the social security and national insurance chairmen who are being asked to adopt these regulations are quaking in their shoes. I do not blame them. Anyone who can master both the yellow book and the brown book must have either a photographic memory and/or more time on his hands than any local chairman whom I have met; and if that applies to the chairmen—who will, in future, have to be legally qualified—it must apply even more to the wing men. I have appeared before the tribunals, and in my experience the wing men are carried away by the weight of the regulations.
That was the case when the chairman was not a lawyer, so now, when the chairman will be a lawyer, it is extremely unlikely that the lay members will outvote the chairman. That is a retrograde step. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West said, it is crucial that lay persons should, as of right, have direct access to the yellow and brown books if they are to have any role to play in tribunal proceedings. There should not be a difference between the national insurance and the supplementay benefits decisions.
I appreciate that there are pressures in the Government to indulge in all possible cost-saving exercises. I support cost saving, but yellow and brown books could be made available to the panel of tribunals at a reasonable cost. That is a saving which the Government could well have done without. The stance which the Department seems to be taking with regard to not assessing all of the circumstances when asked to adjudicate is retrograde. Hon. Members find that, by putting the question differently to the Department, our constituents get much better treatment. A constituent asks whether he is entitled to X or Y benefit and the Department can truthfully put its hand on its heart and say no, but if I write asking to what benefits my constituent is entitled, the answer is what I want and the constituent needs. Lay people do not know what questions to ask. Who can blame them when they are faced with our ineffably complex system? It might be an additional and onerous burden on the Department, but it should examine all the circumstances when a person makes a claim.
I am also worried about delays. My experience in this regard is limited to my constituency. Even in relatively small places in the south-east of Scotland there are delays. People in my part of the world must make long journeys and incur considerable expense to get to tribunals. That is an inhibiting factor. Legal representation would be the most direct and helpful step that the Department could take, although I accept that its provision might not be within the gift of the Minister. In spite of the fact that discretion has alledgedly been screwed out of the system and lay persons should be able to make sense of it, the one step that would make the biggest difference in cutting through the swathe of complexity would be the introduction of lawyers and the provision of legal aid for such representation at tribunals. That might be expensive, but the service would benefit greatly, from such a change.
I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West that it is a fundamental point of principle, equity and justice that minutes that are taken at a tribunal should be taken by the chairman and not the clerk, as the clerk is a DHSS employee who has a vested interest. Decisions should be made on the basis of facts recorded by the chairman.
There are so many questions about the regulations that I cannot support them, but I should like to make it clear


that I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who damned them completely. I understand that the Minister's job is complicated. It would be much better if he took these proposals away for six months and sorted them out properly before presenting them again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am grateful for the opportunity of discussing the adjudication regulations, because they are of great significance to many less well-off people, as well as some who are a little better off, and are well worthy of discussion by the House.
I emphasise that although, because of the parliamentary pressures arising from the dissolution at the time when the underlying primary legislation was going through the House, some of these matters were not discussed as fully as they would have been if the Bill had gone through on a normal timetable, that was not the result of any intention by the Government to attenuate discussion or of any Government wish to proceed other than openly.
In view of the strictures that have been levelled against us, I should point out that although there was not much discussion in the latter stages of the passage of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill—which became known as the HASSASSA Act—on the Floor of the House, there was an extensive discussion in Committee, during which, as far as I can recall, one of the major questions raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) tonight—single doctor adjudication—was not raised at all by the Opposition.
There was considerable consultation with the BMA about the changes. I accept that the association's private practice committee, which is not normally the greatest friend of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, just as he is not normally its greatest supporter, has reservations about our proposals. However, the absence of agreement is not the same as an absence of consultation, and there has been a good deal of consultation in the drawing up of the proposals.
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that the adjudication regulations, although bulky, represent a condensed version of the previous secondary legislation on the subject. In the past, these items were scattered through 11 statutory instruments and we have consolidated them in a form which I am advised—I do not pretend to have counted — is one third shorter than their varied predecessors. The commendable economy of administration for which the Government are well known has been carried through into the adjudication regulations. That is in line with our intention that one of the aims of the HASSASSA Act should be to simplify and streamline the social security adjudication system.
The fact that the system is not as simplified and streamlined under the regulations as I or the House should like does not detract from the fact that they are a significant move in the right direction. I was much encouraged that the Child Poverty Action Group's recent book "We don't give clothing grants any more"—which is not noticeably flattering to the Government — says in chapter 3 on appeals:
The DHSS has clearly recognised the problems and is moving to correct them.

That is a comment on our proposals on appeals, part of which are represented by the regulations.
Despite that, I recognise that the regulations are complicated and it may help the House and others concerned with these matters if I summarise the three main changes introduced by the Act and, thereby, place the regulations in context. The officers who decide these claims, formerly known by different titles according to the particular benefit, are now all entitled "adjudication officers", to make explicit the single process of adjudication where the law is applied to the facts of each case. To monitor the standards of that process of initial adjudication, HASSASSA provided for the appointment of a chief adjudication officer, who is to issue advice and guidance on the law to all adjudication officers. He replaces the former chief supplementary benefit officer and the chief insurance officer. He will furthermore—this is a useful departure—be making an annual report to the Secretary of State on standards of adjudication by adjudication officers, which will be published. In due course that might give rise to further debate.
Where a claimant is dissatisfied with the decision made by the first tier, he has the right to appeal to an independent tribunal, and these tribunals—this is the second set of changes—have been unified under a presidential system under HASSASSA. The Act provided for the appointment of a president of social security appeal tribunals and medical appeal tribunals. He is appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not the Secretary of State. He is responsible for the administrative organisation of the tribunal system, the training of chairmen and members and the appointment of tribunal members. I am glad to say that Judge Byrt QC has been in post as the SSAT president since November and is now assisted by seven regional chairmen and four full-time chairmen. The full unification—it was implicit in the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West that the process is not yet complete, and I must accept that—of national insurance local tribunals and supplementary benefit appeal tribunals will unquestionably be an evolutionary process, but the adjudication regulations represent an important step towards harmonising their different traditions.
Medical appeal tribunals, although under the administrative wing of the president, will retain their separate identity. The initial tier of medical adjudication will also remain distinct from lay adjudication, and this subject formed the third strand of the main legislation by preparing the ground for regulations on the use of adjudicating medical practitioners rather than the previous system of two-doctor medical boards, with the safeguards of broader rights of appeal to a medical appeal tribunal.
Against that background, the preparation of the adjudication regulations involved the largely technical task of drawing together the different procedures of adjudication. In general, the regulations continue the previous practice. That needs to be borne in mind against the background of some of the criticisms that have been made, which suggested that many features of the regulations were being introduced for the first time. As I have said, much of the regulations are a continuation of that which have already existed. It may be argued that there is scope for further improvements, but it is important that the House should understand that that is being urged without necessarily any criticism of positive changes that the Government are proposing, although I recognise that some are regarded as being less than satisfactory There


are changes and this is not purely a measure of consolidation. Some changes have not so far been mentioned and I hope that the House will welcome them. There has been a concentration, perhaps understandably, on some of the criticisms.
Regulation 4(4) gives all appellants the unfettered right to a private tribunal hearing. In the past, national insurance cases were held in public, while supplementary benefit and FIS cases were held in private. We have allowed choice by allowing the claimant to opt for either according to his own preference, and that has the backing of the Council on Tribunals.
Regulation 7 provides that appeal tribunals should be able to refer a question to a medical practitioner for examination and report. Up to now, national insurance tribunals had this power, but it has now been extended to supplementary benefit cases. It should be useful, for example, where additions for dietary needs are requested on medical grounds.
Regulation 20 implements a change in the system for applying for leave to appeal, of which I gave notice in our Committee debate last year, namely, that applications for leave to appeal should be directed initially to the tribunal chairman, and only in the event of a refusal or late application direct to the commissioner. We have ensured that only legally qualified chairmen will consider such applications, as it is necessary in supplementary benefit applications to be able to identify the possible point of law. This regulation does not restrict the right of appeal, as an application may still be made to the commissioner after refusal of leave to appeal by the tribunal chairman. It does, however, provide a useful sift, as it exposes doubtful points of law at an early stage, and it is appropriate that we should demonstrate our faith in the new tribunal system by entrusting chairmen with a new responsibility.
Another important point raises the question of delays, on which hon. Members on both sides of the House have commented. Regulation 29 modifies the system for appealing to the commissioners, by introducing a time limit of three months for those who wish to submit written observations on an application, appeal or reference on a national insurance claim. There was previously no time limit for those cases, but the time limit of four weeks applicable to point of law appeals—mainly supplementary benefit ones—could not be implemented where the commissioner undertakes a complete re-hearing of the case.
We intend to consider that after experience of the new system. There is a useful improvement in that the time limits for observations — mainly the Department's observations — have been kept the same regarding supplementary benefit point of law cases. Although we have been unable to introduce the same relatively low time limit for national insurance appeals, for which a great deal of information must often be gathered, we have for the first time introduced a time limit—of three months. That shows our anxiety to reduce the delays, which have undoubtedly occurred.
I am glad to say that delays on appeals to commissioners were significantly reduced as a result of efforts by the Department and the commissioners to speed up matters. I accept as willingly now as I did in Committee

that delays on supplementary appeal tribunals are longer than I should like or think it appropriate for the House to find acceptable.
Part of the purpose of the exercise—the change in last year's Act, these new regulations, the new structure of tribunals and various other steps are being taken, for example, to improve the training of adjudication officers in our Department—is to speed up the process of appeal and produce a position which I can more readily defend as acceptable. I hope and believe that it will have that effect, but it will take time.
I now turn to the changes, on which the hon. Member for Oldham, West spent much time, in the arrangements for the medical adjudication of industrial injuries disablement benefit claims. Regulation 32 brings more flexibility into the system by permitting more extensive use of single doctors in deciding medical questions that arise in such claims.
Until now these questions have in most cases been decided by a medical board of two doctors. However, an internal departmental study suggested that the large majority of disablement benefit claims involve relatively straightforward medical issues, are not contentious, lead to small gratuities only, and do not justify the deliberations of two doctors. In 80 per cent. of all cases the disablement assessed was 10 per cent. or less, and in most cases ran for a period of 12 months or less, giving rise to a gratuity averaging about £130—using rates current now—for a one-year award.
It is these comparatively medically straightforward cases that a single doctor, an adjudicating medical practitioner, will be called upon to determine under the revised arrangements in regulation 32. For the minority of cases where there are more difficult medical issues, two doctors will continue to act as a medical board. Such difficulties are often found in applications for review on the grounds of fresh evidence, or unforeseen aggravation of the results of the industrial injury, or prescribed disease and in the diagnosis of recrudescence questions that arise in prescribed diseases claims. Accordingly, the regulations make provision for all review applications and all claims to prescribed diseases to be considered by the medical board of two doctors. There will, of course, be other cases outside those two categories where the medical issues are likely to be complex. Therefore, provision has been made for any such cases where medical advice suggests that a second medical opinion is desirable to be referred by the Secretary of State to a two-doctor medical board.
In answer to the specific question of the hon. Member for Oldham, West about how this will be achieved, in broad terms the laymen who make the initial assessment will be given a set of guidelines about cases which they should refer to a medical officer. He, in turn, will be aware of the regulations and guidelines by which cases would normally go to a two-doctor board. To make it even clearer, cases involving eyes and ears, psychiatric cases, multiple injuries, malignant diseases and cardio-vascular conditions will normally go to a two-doctor medical board in the same way as they do at present.
I accept that, as with any such changes, these changes will need careful monitoring, and I guarantee that they will get it. Of course, we shall make changes if some of the fears that have been expressed are justified. But we believe that they will not be justified, and that the safeguards that we introduced to ensure that the genuinely more difficult


cases get the necessary additional treatment of a two-doctor medical board will overcome the anxieties that have been expressed. Indeed, we believe that the effect of the arrangements will be to ensure a better match between the complexity of the issues and the number of doctors needed to decide those issues.
What this will do — I do not regard it as penny-pinching or as cheese-paring, in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman used the words—will be to allow better use of a scarce medical adjudication resource, and at the same time it has made it possible for us to strengthen the appeal rights of claimants by removing a restriction on appeal that has existed since the start of the industrial injuries scheme. This change which, with the other changes, took effect on 23 April, allows disablement benefit claimants to appeal to a medical appeal tribunal against a provisional award by an adjudicating medical practitioner, in a way that they have not previously been allowed to appeal. There is a countervailing improvement that we can make with the resources that are freed by the change to single-doctor boarding for some simpler cases.
Of course, I know that disquiet has been voiced by doctors who undertake industrial injuries adjudication and, as I have already said, by the private practice committee of the British Medical Association. Their chief worry is that adjudication by one doctor acting alone may lead to variations on decision-making, with resultant unfairness to claimants. However, there seems to be common ground that many medical examinations for industrial injuries purposes involve straightforward medical conditions that would cause little or no difficulty to a single doctor in reaching the appropriate decision. The arrangements are designed to ensure that such cases only are referred to a single doctor, so the problems envisaged should rarely arise.
However, I should emphasise that if the medical complexities of the case become evident only during the medical examination, the further arrangements will allow for the reference to the single doctor to be revoked and the case considered afresh by two doctors. Moreover, if, despite the straightforward nature of the case, the claimant is aggrieved at the single doctor's decision, he can protect his interests by exercising the right of appeal which, through the removal of the restriction that I mentioned earlier, is now available to nearly all claimants.
I hope that they will have allayed some of the worries that arise, understandably, at a time of change. We intend to monitor the effects of the new arrangements closely, and we shall, of course, make adjustment if we find that they are not working satisfactorily.
Reverting for a moment to non-medical adjudication, regulation 69 describes the procedure when one adjudication officer has to refer a case to another adjudication officer. Those circumstances will arise because complications arise from the inter-action between different kinds of benefit. So long as certain supplementary benefit questions depend upon decisions made in relation to other benefits, such as child benefit or unemployment benefit, there will be a need to refer to specialists, to ensure consistency of decisions relating to an individual. In those circumstances, it does not make sense for the appeal tribunal to hear a case before the full facts are available, and we have therefore ensured that the appeal tribunal should become involved only when all the questions have been tackled by the adjudication officers in the first instance. If a question can be resolved by the

adjudication officer, we should not bring in the tribunal without cause, because the system is an expensive resource that we should clearly use as efficiently as we can.
Having made those points about some of the changes contained in the regulations, I should deal with some of the other points which were raised during the debate. First, the hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned training, and the issue of yellow and brown books. I shall make two points, one of which is simple and relevant. It has never in the past been the practice for members of national insurance local tribunals to have the brown book, although I accept that members of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals have had the yellow book. There is a disparity in the traditions, and it would be as possible to rely upon one precedent as another to say what was right. I understand that the members of national insurance local tribunals have not had the brown book because it was felt to be less necessary in tribunals with a legally qualified chairman. To that extent it could be argued that that is the sounder precedent in the case of the new amalgamated tribunals.
Leaving that aside, I have to make the basic point, which I would have thought that hon. Members would recognise, certainly those who were on last year's Committee, that the subject of training that the hon. Member for Oldham, West raised, and that of the supply of materials to tribunal members are not, under the Act, matters for Ministers. They are matters for the president of the appeal tribunals. He has made no request or recommendation to us for the supply of the materials that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Should he do so, we would of course consider the point, but it is a matter for him that is written into the Act. Parts of the relevant section were written in in deference to representations from the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends when 'we discussed the Bill last year.
As part of the independence of the president of the tribunals, training and the supply of literature are matters for him and not for Ministers. Therefore, I can say no more about that this evening except that we would consider any propositions put to us.
May I make another important point relating to what the hon. Gentleman said about the taking of notes at tribunals? It appears that he has not registered the extent to which the tribunals are not the same animals as the previous ones in that respect. After a transitional stage the clerks to the tribunals will not be the employees of the DHSS. In the legislation we have provided for the clerks to be directly employed by the president of the social security appeal tribunals. At present DHSS officers are still fulfilling those tasks as a transitional provision, but in doing so they are responsible to the president and not to Ministers. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about note-taking at tribunals fall by the wayside in view of the additional independence that we have, in my view rightly—I feel that it is long overdue—given the clerks. That is what we are proposing and it seems to make the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the taking of notes largely irrelevant.
There is little else that I can usefully add in response to the hon. Gentleman's points. I have tried to cover them all.

Mr. Meacher: I am not at all convinced by some of the Minister's explanations and the way in which he tries to avoid responsibility for the availability of the social


security Acts by laying it at the door of the president of the appeals tribunal. His explanation as to how he intends to reduce delays is also highly dubious.
The Minister has not answered two of the questions that I asked. First, should not supplementary benefit officers be required to give reasons for their decisions in each case? Secondly, and above all, should it not be a duty on visiting officers to inform claimants of all their entitlements when a request is being made for one single payment or weekly payment?

Mr. Newton: I am sorry. I had not intended to try to avoid the hon. Gentleman's questions.
On the first point, we are giving training to adjudication officers on the decisions issued in supplementary benefit cases. I believe that we are making progress towards giving every claimant the right to request reasons, and the forms notifying decisions will inform claimants of that right. We are not seeking to deny people the reasons for the decisions made about their claims. We are seeking to extend the availability of reasons to them. For administrative reasons, we should be reluctant to go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but this is certainly something that I shall bear in mind and towards which we are making progress. Indeed, I hope that with the improved training that we are seeking to give to adjudication officers this is one of the areas in which there will be a modest further improvement in the way in which claimants are treated and in the rights of claimants as a result of the changes as a whole.
With regard to the duties of officers, I must rest on the position that a benefit officer must deal essentially with what the claimant claims. In the end, it is up to the claimant to put forward his requests. I believe that that must be so. Otherwise, there can be no doubt that an officer could be forced into the position of having to conduct a widespread and possibly intrusive investigation of all the claimant's affairs.
With all the advice and improved information that we can make available to people, we should not depart from the basic principle that it must be for the claimant to make his claim. It is not for officers of the Department to guess what that claim might be. There is a clear distinction between that and the duty of the Department to make it as easy as possible for claimants to know what their entitlement may be through improved information and advice.
In this context, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South seems to have missed the celebrated newspaper picture of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security two or three months ago receiving a plain English award on behalf of the Department for one of the earlier productions of our new forms unit which is utterly dedicated to making our English better than it now is. The progress already made was reflected in that award.
In my view, there is a clear distinction to be drawn between our duty to provide the maximum and clearest possible advice and information to claimants about benefits and their possible entitlements and the duty of benefit officers, adjudication officers or officers of the Department, which must be to assess the claims that claimants make. In saying that, I do not wish to imply that we do not encourage our officers to be as helpful as possible, but to go beyond that and to suggest that they

have a duty to investigate every possible aspect of the claimant's affairs, as the hon. Gentleman came close to requesting, would be to go further than I am prepared to contemplate or than would be right in a benefit system such as ours.
I hope that I have covered the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked, even if I have not managed fully to satisfy him on all of them. I have outlined some of the improvements that the regulations make. In view of the manifest fact that even if our proposals are not perfect they certainly represent a significant improvement on the situation until now I hope that hon. Members will not press their opposition to the regulations.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: If, as the Minister said, these regulations turn out in practice to be an improvement on the preceding system, it will be the first change introduced by the Government in this sphere that has succeeded in doing so, whatever claims may have been made for the changes in advance.
I noticed with interest the observations of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on trade unionists, and I am sure that trade unionists in her locality, who have had conversations with her in the past, will note them with equal interest. I was particularly interested in her contention that trade unionists are not people with local' knowledge. That was a particularly fascinating sideline.
Two other points are more worthy of comment. The hon. Lady referred to the annoyance among claimants on confronting trade union members sitting in judgment. That probably pales into insignificance beside the despair felt by most claimants when confronted by people who have no experience of their problems and have very little sympathy for them.
The hon. Lady also referred to the tragedy of the lack of clarity in these regulations, as did the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I entirely agree. In a slightly different context the hon. Gentleman admitted that he supported the Government's wish to save costs.
The basic reason for the lack of clarity is not the inability of the Department to write plain English—little though that may be borne out by some of the contributions we hear in the House — but simply because all the changes implemented by the Government have always been done on a nil cost basis. If the Government were prepared to put more money into the social security system, it would be possible to have simpler regulations and we would not need debates of this kind.
I was not particularly impressed by the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on training and the facilities available to tribunals. He said that this was a matter for the president, and I hope that the president will take note of the remarks that have been made. I have too much respect for the Minister not to imagine that when he takes decisions he has primary information in front of him, and the president ought to recognise that that is necessary for tribunal members.
If the president does not ask for such information to be made available, many will suspect that he has not done so because of pressures from the Government in the context of the costs involved. Many would regard that as an indication that the president is not taking his duties with sufficient seriousness.
I note that regulation 3 of the appeals rules, which applied previously, does not appear in these new regulations. As this allows the Secretary of State to pay travelling and subsistence allowances to those who attend tribunals, perhaps the Minister will now say—if not, perhaps he will write—whether travelling expenses will be paid in future. If this is merely an omission, I am sure that the Government will rectify it as speedily as the Minister for Social Security so often rectifies the other omissions and errors that they make.
We have observed another of the petty meanness to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West referred. In regulation 59 (b) the Government have slipped in a substitution so that it will now read:
a trade union of which the claimant is a member at the time of the appeal and was so immediately before the question at issue arose".
I can only think that this is an attempt to deprive those individuals who need to make a claim—and who had not previously perceived the wisdom of joining a trade union but did so between the date of their injury and the date of their appeal—of the assistance that trade unions can and do provide in making representations on these points in these circumstances. If that is the case, it is yet another example of the Government's petty meanness and stupidity.
I shall highlight some of the problems that arise with tribunals. Often, the decisions of the Department's officers—and heaven knows it is not their fault, because they are suffering under the Prime Minister's self-imposed determination to reduce the Civil Service and so may face enormous difficulties on that count—are sadly all too frequently quite incorrect. Earlier this week, I had the example of a call from an office in Wales. As far as I can discover a wholly arbitrary decision has been made, perhaps for some years, by the local officer about what the grounds should be for an award of single payments for floor covering. It has had the effect of reducing the payments due by half. There appears to be no regulation to back up that decision. No commisioner's ruling provided any basis for it. It had been concocted at some point by someone in the local office. Heaven knows for how many years it has been applied.
The CPAG's excellent book has been quoted. On page 42, it gives yet another example of a claimant being given a wrong decision, and that was from a tribunal. I note that it is said that the tribunals will be better in future. We certainly hope so. However, a tribunal accepted the benefit officer's argument that because someone had had an illness for many years that led him to need special clothing, he no longer qualified for a clothing grant, because it was now normal wear and tear. Again, that decision had no basis on which any reliance could be placed. The tribunal members might have been able to contest it if they had had primary legislation, information, regulations, and so on in front of them.
It is not only the information available to tribunals that is important, but the attitude. On page 41, there is an excellent example. Many members of existing tribunals rely very heavily on whatever interpretation of the law is placed before them. They appear not fully to recognise the fact that there may be conflicting interpretations of the law, let alone of information. One organiser in London is quoted as saying:
In fact every time I challenged the presenting officer to quote his source, I was interrupted by the chairperson with 'He is only trying to help you dear.'.

Sadly, that is an all too familar experience to those who appear before tribunals today. I recognise that the Minister feels that that will change, but we believe that it is more likely to change if tribunals consist of people who are able, on their own account, to be well informed.
Perhaps the weakest of all the many weak arguments that the Minister put to us was that it was for claimants to identify their needs and to press officers to meet them, and not for benefit officers to guest at them. If the regulations were the model of clarity sought by some hon. Members and by the Minister, the Minister might have a more sensible basis for his argument. However, although he was quite curt to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West about his unkind remarks, he must be aware that it is not only my hon. Friend, but one of his own commissioners who has said that it is outrageous. Surely it must be the duty of officers to investigate all the needs of claimants. It is only the Department that has agreed with the application of that argument.
The Minister clearly did not have time to deal with all the points raised in the debate, and we hope that he will write answering the points made about regulation 19, and so on. If not, we shall press him further for a reply. We shall vote for the prayer and against the regulations, because, as usual, they are not as clear as they might, be and, more importantly, because we feel that tonight—as so often in the past—the Government's fine words will be borne out by a worse experience for claimants in practice.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 177.

Division No. 310]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Alton, David
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek


Ashdown, Paddy
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Freud, Clement


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Golding, John


Benn, Tony
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hardy, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boyes, Roland
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clay, Robert
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Cohen, Harry
Lamond, James


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Conlan, Bernard
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Corbett, Robin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Craigen, J. M.
Loyden, Edward


Crowther, Stan
McCartney, Hugh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cunningham, Dr John
McGuire, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dormand, Jack
Maxton, John


Douglas, Dick
Meacher, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Meadowcroft, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Michie, William


Ellis, Raymond
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Nellist, David


Ewing, Harry
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
Penhaligon, David






Pike, Peter
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wallace, James


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Gordon


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Don Dixon and


Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Frank Haynes.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Arnold, Tom
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bellingham, Henry
Fallon, Michael


Berry, Sir Anthony
Farr, John


Best, Keith
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gale, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Alastair


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Ground, Patrick


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hannam, John


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Harvey, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) .


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hawksley, Warren


Colvin, Michael
Hayes, J.


Coombs, Simon
Hayhoe, Barney


Cope, John
Hayward, Robert


Couchman, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cranborne, Viscount
Heddle, John


Crouch, David
Henderson, Barry


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hickmet, Richard





Hind, Kenneth
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Speed, Keith


Holt, Richard
Speller, Tony


Hooson, Tom
Spencer, Derek


Hordern, Peter
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Howard, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Squire, Robin


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Steen, Anthony


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Stern, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Hunter, Andrew
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sumberg, David


Key, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Terlezki, Stefan


Knox, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Lawler, Geoffrey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Thornton, Malcolm


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Thurnham, Peter


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Major, John
Tracey, Richard


Mather, Carol
Twinn, Dr Ian


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Viggers, Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Murphy, Christopher
Walden, George


Newton, Tony
Waller, Gary


Osborn, Sir John
Ward, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Parris, Matthew
Warren, Kenneth


Porter, Barry
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitfield, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rowe, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas


Ryder, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wood, Timothy


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Woodcock, Michael


Sayeed, Jonathan
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Silvester, Fred
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Sims, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill

Lords amendments considererd.

Clause 4

SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO AUTHORISE REFUSAL TO SELL CERTAIN DWELLING HOUSES REQUIRED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 23, leave out from 'later' to 'serve' in line 25.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this we may take the following Lords amendments: No. 2, in page 3, leave out line 27 and insert
'A refusal by the landlord under'
No. 3, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'enable him to ascertain whether' and insert 'demonstrate that'
No. 4, in page 3, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 4.

Mr. Stewart: It is with some reluctance that I recommend that the House should accept these amendments. Hon. Members will recall that the present clause 4 was generally welcomed when it was inserted into the Bill by Government amendment on Report, following undertakings that we had given in Committee, particularly to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen).
We introduced the new clause because we wished to be helpful to the islands councils, which had represented that they should not be required to sell teachers' houses on the islands because of the problems that that could create in outlying areas and in the remote islands—problems that were referred to in particular by hon. Members representing those areas. We had considered whether the islands councils might be left discretion in this matter, but we recognised that the teachers, who are secure tenants, also had an interest and it seemed to us to be unfair that teachers should be discriminated against and potentially denied the right to buy their houses simply because of the accident of their employment, and without there being any demonstrable link between the house and the tenant's employment other than the word of their landlord.
For that reason, as hon. Members know, we suggested as a compromise that the islands councils should be given the power to refuse to sell such houses, provided that they had the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe that this compromise was generally welcomed by the House on report as a fair solution to the problem of the islands, while protecting the interests of the teachers.
Before the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) leaps to his feet, let me say that I recognise that he specifically said that it would be better for the islands councils to retain discretion in this matter. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary explained at the time, we did not regard this as acceptable because we felt that there was the possibility of a conflict of interest between the landlord and tenant and we therefore considered it undesirable that the landlord should be left

as sole judge in his own case. This was why we suggested that the decision should be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on the basis of evidence presented by the islands councils. A similar procedure already existed under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 in the case of amenity housing for the elderly and disabled, and it has, I believe, worked to the satisfaction of both landlords and tenants.
The present amendments, however, will leave the islands councils sole judge in deciding whether or not to sell a particular house and a tenant will have no right of appeal agains their decision. This is without precedent in the tenants' rights legislation. If a teacher feels that this landlord has unfairly or unreasonably refused to sell him his house, there will be no one to whom he can turn for redress. That could lead to ill feeling and difficulty between the islands councils as landlords and a substantial group of their tenants.
In reconsidering the Government's position on this matter we have taken note of the report of the committee of inquiry into the functions and powers of the islands councils. The committee recommended that the islands councils should be left with discretion in the matter and should not be required to seek my right hon. Friend's consent before refusing to sell a house to a teacher.
It is generally recognised—it has been recognised in all the debates on this subject—that the islands councils are a special and unique case. The islands councils have represented that they are responsible bodies, and we accept that without reservation. We believe that if the islands councils are given discretion in this matter they 'will exercise it reasonably. The Government will, of course, monitor the situation carefully, and if there is any suggestion that the discretion is being abused, we shall need to reconsider the position. I hope that that will not be necessary.
On that basis, I recommend that the House should agree with the Lords in their amendments.

Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill): I cannot resist congratulating the Minister on putting a brave face on the Lords amendments. In times past, I have described him as the movable tent at the Scottish Office. Try as he does, it is his misfortune that he has had to return to his housing portfolio of old.
The three islands councils have had a tortuous struggle to secure this minor concession in the legislation since it was first mooted in Committee. I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), to think as an islander. As the Minister said, the Government had a certain flexibility at that stage, but in truth it has taken their Lordships, by 95 votes to 84, to impress upon the Government the need to budge. Moreover, the Montgomery committee, in chapter 14, put forward a persuasive case on the reasons why the Government should accept the amendment. Therefore, we welcome the fact that at last the Government have realised that there is no need for the heavy-handedness of the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the three islands councils.
The Minister said that the Government are leaving the respective councils as the sole judge. I have no doubt that, as all-purpose authorities, handling both housing and education, they will exercise the judgment of Solomon on these matters. It is sufficient for us to know that the


Government have acknowledged the different position of the islands councils, as all-purpose authorities. We are glad that the Government agree with the other place on this issue.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendments. As the islands councils have achieved this victory, I do not want to go over past history. With regard to the Western Isles council—it may be true of the Orkney and Shetland islands councils as well—I could not understand the Government's difficulty in allowing the councils to use their own judgment, because they fully met their obligations under the tenants' rights legislation. My council did so with regard to the sale of teachers' houses at Stornoway, where there was an ample housing stock, and it could be done without difficulty. I am delighted that the other place has concentrated the Government's mind in this excellent way.
The Minister says that the islands councils will be the sole judge. That could be an excellent precedent to follow in many similar situations.
While thanking the Government for their acceptance of the Lords Amendments, I would like also, on behalf of my council, to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for his part in achieving this result.

Mr. James Wallace: When asked by a gentleman of the press to comment on the vote in another place, I said that I hoped that the Government would show good sense and would not seek to overturn the amendment made there. I am glad to see that, in the end, good sense has prevailed.
The Minister said that the islands authorities were being given an unprecedented power. That is true, but only because the islands authorities are unitary authorities. On mainland Scotland, the education and housing functions are of course separated between the regional and district councils. I share the Minister's hope that the islands authorities will use their power in a responsible manner. As the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) pointed out, the islands authorities' record to date on the sale of council houses has been good. In the built-up areas in both Orkney and Shetland in particular, where there has been a supply of teachers' houses, the councils have been prepared to sell.
I welcome this move to give discretion to the local authorities because it is the local authorities which are best

placed to make local decisions. The fact that it has been left to the most undemocratic Chamber in the western world to defend the rights of local democracy is a telling comment on our present situation. However, I hope that the Government's behaviour may herald the reversal of the trend of the past few years towards concentrating decisions in the hands of the Secretary of State. I hope that there will be a trend towards a return to local democracy. In the meantime, for this small relief, much thanks.

Mr. John Maxton: The Minister has said that an unprecedented power is being given to the islands authorities, but nothing of the sort is happening. Teachers under the islands authorities are merely being brought into line with teachers on islands such as Islay, Arran or Bute, which are under the authority of Strathclyde region and have no right to buy because they are under the education authority, and with the many other teachers living in school houses in remote rural areas throughout the mainland who have no right to buy. The islands authorities are simply being brought into line with every other local authority, and every other education authority, in the rest of Scotland. It makes sense not to have one unique group of teachers who have the right to buy their houses when no other group of teachers in Scotland has that right. The House of Lords has done no more than restore a small measure of sanity to a somewhat insane housing policy.
I hope that the ability to take their own decisions will be restored to all district and regional authorities. They should have the power to decide what they wish to do with their housing stock, of whatever sort it may be.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I shall refrain from responding to the latter remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I am glad that the Government's proposals have all-party support, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords] [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that Act; and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State under that Act. —[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I shall be brief and colleagues can go home, because I do not intend to divide the House on an issue which has been raised throughout the passage of the Bill and which I raised many months ago with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
The money resolution gives me an opportunity to raise the point again as it does not seem that the financial effects of the Bill are covered by the text and the explanatory memorandum. In all probability, other expenses will be created by the Bill because there is no statutory requirement on the Home Secretary to refuse to repatriate a terrorist. The extra expense will arise because there might well be extended negotiations between Britain and countries that try to repatriate terrorists whom we have convicted. It is inevitable that some countries will attempt to get their terrorists repatriated. We shall have to resist that.
The Bill states that absolute discretion lies with the Home Secretary, who will have to take account of all the prevailing considerations and the merits of the case. Flexibility is specifically written into the Bill. It is highly dangerous that the Home Secretary can and will be put under pressure time and again. British Governments have been put under pressure to effect a swap. Lonsdale was swapped for Greville Wynne and there is a long list of such examples. It is unreasonable to suppose that the same will not happen again. Additional expense will therefore be incurred by negotiating with and going to countries and the time delays involved. That is my justification for raising the matter.
The essential fact is that the British public will not tolerate the return of terrorists. We now have five Libyans who are being held for terrorist offences in Manchester and London. The Gaddafi regime has arrested two innocent Britons—

Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he must stick to the expenses involved. This is a narrow money resolution.

Mr. Lawrence: I envisage extra expense being involved in negotiating a blackmail. Money would be saved if there were statutory provision in this Bill to stop the repatriation of terrorists. It would strengthen the backbone of the Home Secretary, who would then have no truck with any expensive negotiation. It is one thing for the Home Secretary to say, "I have a discretion and I shall not give in" and quite another for him to say, "I have no discretion. The law says that I cannot give in in any circumstances."
This matter has been raised often and, so far, the Government have not given way. It should be reconsidered

constantly. The Home Secretary needs to be protected against the type of pressures that will be put on him. I urge the Government to reconsider a matter that has been urged by all parties during the passage of the Bill. They should put it beyond doubt that no terrorist will be repatriated because the Bill provides that that shall not occur. That would save money which would otherwise be involved in negotiations and the waste of time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has used his customary ingenuity to make on the money resolution a point which also applies to the substance of the Bill. No doubt he will have other opportunities to make that point.
I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend has any doubts about the robustness with which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will use the discretion conferred on him by the Bill. My job is simply to say that the terms of the money resolution are widely drawn and provide for any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for the purpoe of implementing the provisions of the Bill to be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that Act, and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State under that Act.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

ENERGY ISSUES IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9706/82, 8024/83, 8296/83, 4987/83, 7804/83, 9865/83, 8110/83, 8051/83 and 7809/83; and fully supports appropriate cost-effective measures that will help to minimise the Community's dependence on imported oil. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

SECURITIES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Stock Exchange (Listing) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question agreed to.

ROADS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Ordered,
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee —[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Orders of the Day — Mr. Alan Tschelebinski

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

12 midnight

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the need for a public inquiry into the death of Alan Tschelebinski in Strangeways prison, Manchester in January 1983.
I had hoped that the Minister of State, Home Office, who is to reply to the debate, would agree to such a public inquiry. Although nothing can be done for Alan or his parents, we ought to learn the lessons of this tragedy and ensure that nothing like it happens again.
I should have preferred a public inquiry, because I have to criticise many of the individuals who dealt with Alan during the last few minths of his life, and the problem with an Adjournment debate is that it does not give such individuals the opportunity to defend their actions and explain themselves. A public inquiry would give them the chance to explain why they behaved as they did.
A public inquiry would also give us a chance to look at how, once again, the police complaints procedure has not worked. There has been a whitewash over the way in which the police dealt with a mentally ill individual. In addition, a public inquiry would have given us an opportunity to look at the prison medical service, which was not adequate to meet Alan's needs during his eight days in prison.
I shall briefly outline what happened to Alan between 1976 and his death in 1983. While working at Portwood brush works, he contracted TB. Before that, although he had suffered mild epileptic fits at school, he had not had any major problems. However, while being treated for TB at Marple Dale hospital, he suffered a severe attack of grand mal and fairly soon thereafter the first instance of his being violent to other people occurred when he attacked another patient.
However, after that, it was possible for Alan to return home and, although life was fairly difficult for him there, he managed to hold various jobs. In the end, in 1979, it was arranged for him to go into St. Thomas' hospital, Stockport for a short period because of some of the difficulties at home. The social services department arranged for him to go first to Simon house and then Chaucer house — short-term accommodation in Stockport.
Unfortunately, following a case conference at Chaucer house, Alan jumped from a first-floor window and sustained cuts and injuries that resulted in his having to be taken to Manchester royal infirmary. It was felt that he could not be discharged back into the community, but adequate accommodation for him was not available at Stepping hill hospital, Stockport. He was transferred to Prestwich hospital, where considerable investigations were conducted into his epilepsy and into the possibility that he had a cerebral tumour. Extensive investigations were carried out at Salford royal infirmary and Bootham park hospital in York.
For most of the time that Alan was at Prestwich, his behaviour seemed to respond to treatment and, although there was one outburst of violence in late 1981, when he atacked a nurse, it was hoped in 1982 that he could be returned into the community in Stockport.
Unfortunately, there was an apparent lack of liaison between Prestwich hospital and the social services department at Stockport. Nothing happened for a long time, and during that period Alan began to complain that the staff at Prestwich hospital were teasing him. He became very dissatisfied. Eventally it was arranged that he should be moved from Prestwich hospital to the Stepping hill hospital at Stockport, and he went there in November 1982. From that date he appears to have gone to the local police station on two occasions to complain about the treatment that he had received at Prestwich hospital. The doctors at Prestwich believe that he was exaggerating in his complaints.
Alan returned home over the Christmas period of 1982. He was going out from Stepping hill hospital with the agreement of the staff, and he did so on a number of occasions. On the Wednesday after Christmas he left his home and his parents assumed that he was returning to the hospital. However, it is alleged that he returned to Prestwich hospital to look for a nurse against whom he had a grudge. At any rate, he believed that he had a grudge against the nurse. Having failed to find the nurse, he set fire to a car belonging to the nurse. He then returned to the Stepping hill hospital and on the following day, Thursday 30 December, the police interviewed him at the hospital as part of their inquiries into the burning of the car. Following that, he was taken to Bury court, where he appeared on the Friday without his parents being able to be present at the court hearing. He was remanded to Strangeways prison and eight days later he died in prison in pretty poor circumstances.
I believe that a public inquiry should address itself to why the police, when they arrested him at Stepping hill hospital, did not inform Alan's parents that they were arresting him. I have a letter that was sent to me in May 1983 by Chief Superintendent Halliwell of the Bury division, in which he makes it clear that he did not tell the parents because he did not believe that he had a duty to do so. He wrote:
I would advise you that, of course, Mr. Tschelebinski is an adult and there is no requirement on the police to notify his parents under these circumstances.
I accept that there is no duty on the police to inform the parents of an adult that their son or daughter is the subject of their inquiries, but I understood that it was clear practice — it is to be incorporated in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—that when there is any doubt about the mental condition of an adult it is the duty of the police to inform the parents.
It was clear to the doctor who was treating Alan at Stepping hill hospital that it was necessary for his parents to be informed. He makes it clear that the nursing staff at Stepping hill hospital impressed upon the police that they believed that Alan's parents should be told and supplied to the police medication for Alan's condition so that he could be properly looked after. The charge nurse was left with the clear understanding that the police would inform Alan's parents of his position.
The police claim that in taking Alan to Bury he told them that he did not want his parents informed. They believed that it was more reasonable to listen to Alan than to his doctor and the charge nurse who was treating him.
When I asked the Minister to consider the holding of a public inquiry, he decided to refer the issue to the Police Complaints Board. There have been considerable discrepancies between what the doctors have said and the


police. It was made clear to the police that Alan's parents should be informed. There are discrepancies between what emerged at the inquest and what subsequently emerged when the reporting officer reported to the Police Complaints Board.
I shall read a letter from the solicitors which makes it clear that at the inquest it emerged that the police did not appreciate Alan's condition. The letter states:
After the burning of the car, the Police evidence was that they went to Stepping Hill Hospital to arrest him and they denied any knowledge of his psychiatric condition. They maintain that they were introduced to Mr. Tschelebinski in the Hospital waiting room and no mention was made to them that he had been brought from the psychiatric ward. I find this extremely hard to believe, as also I disbelieve all their protestions that they had no knowledge of his mental condition. It is quite clear from the information I have, and which I put to the Police, that this man suffered from epilepsy and also had a serious mental condition and in common parlance, he was completely mad.
It would appear that the Magistrates were certainly unaware of his medical history when they remanded him to Strageways and it seems unlikely, in my experience, that they would have done this had they been fully aware of the facts. The Police denied, in their evidence, any suggestion whatever that he had shown any tendencies of insanity and yet it came out later at the inquest, after the Police Sergeants had finished their evidence, that when he arrived at the prison he had a card with him asking the prison authorities to watch him as he was 'violent'. Therefore the Police clearly had an inkling of his medical condition.
It is important that the police complaints investigator should have interviewed Alan's parents—which he did—and also the magistrate's clerk at Bury to find out what the police said then, and checked on the evidence at the inquest. I have reason to believe that he did not do that. I hope that when the Minister replies he will confirm whether or not that happened.
The police did not inform Alan's parents on the Thursday and, of particular importance, at about 9 o'clock on Friday morning, half an hour before Alan was due to appear in court, they phoned his parents, who pointed out that it was impossible to get from Brinnington, Stockport to Bury in half an hour. Instead of postponing the case, the police decided to proceed without the parents. It is unfortunate that the magistrates were not provided with all the information and remanded Alan in Strangeways. It is clear from medical evidence that he should not have been put into the conditions that he was at Strangeways.
When Allan arrived at Strangeways he experienced what no one should experience in British prisons. The evidence at the inquest continues:
On the day after his arrival at Strangeways he was transferred to a bare cell i.e. a cell with no furniture, bare brick walls and a concrete floor and only a mattress on the floor. This was allegedly for his own safety and he was stripped naked and left in this cell from about the second day until the date of his death. At first he apparently refused food but later he began to eat. He was said to have caused the bruising and injuries to himself by `running against the cell walls'. From the Pathologist's evidence these bruises had in fact occurred some days before his death and they were consistent with this behaviour. He is also said to have spent most of his time lying on the cell floor, latterly in his own excreta. The prison doctor maintains in his evidence that he had a full medical record from the hospitals and that the hospital at Strangeways was a proper place for his detention rather than a secure mental ward. The doctor also maintains that the doctors were competent to treat such a person, even though they had no padded cells or any place to detain him in order to prevent him injuring himself. By way of excuse, they said that their padded cells had been destroyed in a recent fire and that they were using temporary accommodation in the prison.
In addition to that, the prison authorities refused to allow his parents to visit him during his few days in prison. They said that he was too ill to have visitors, in spite of

the fact that his mother had dealt with him on many occasions when he was suffering from fits and might well have been the one person who could calm him down. She certainly could have impressed on the prison authorities that they should treat him differently.
There is a major need for an inquiry so that we can find out why the police failed to inform the parents, and satisfy ourselves that the police did riot give one story to the police complaints board and a different one at the inquest. We must also discover why the magistrates at Bury remanded someone to a prison when, had they examined even briefly the charge sheet, they would have realised something about his mental background and would at least have taken into account the fact that Strangeways was an inappropriate place. If the medical officer of Strangeways genuinely had all the medical background on Alan that he claimed at the inquest he had, he, too, should have realised that Strangeways was not the sort of place where, especially in view of the damage to other prison accommodation, Alan could be looked after properly. Finally, we must know why, when it was clear that Alan was in such a bad condition, the medical officer did riot move him to a secure mental hospital that might have had appropriate accommodation for him.
I realise that in 15 minutes I can only sketch the problems of a tragic case. hope that the Minister can answer some of the questions tonight, but, far more, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to have a public inquiry, or some form of inquiry, where all the people involved in this tragedy can be questioned, where lessons can be learnt, and where we can ensure that no one else suffers in this way.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has brought to our attention a terrible personal tragedy, and anyone who examines the matter must share with him a sense of tragedy and express real sympathy to the family of Mr. Tschelebinski. I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter in this way. It is natural that he should do so. He asks for an inquiry, but we must take into account the fact that Mr. Tschelebinski's death has already been inquired into by inquest and that the role of the police in the matter has been investigated, and a report made to the independent Police Complaints Board.
The hon. Gentleman covered many aspects of the case, and to complement rather than contradict what he said I should set out the events as we have them. On 29 December 1982 the Bury division of Greater Manchester police received a complaint from a member of the staff at Prestwich hospital that his car had been set on fire. Following police inquiries, Mr. Tschelebinski was arrested the following day at Stepping Hill hospital, where he had been a patient for about three weeks. He appeared before Bury magistrates' court on 31 December, when the prosecution requested a remand in custody, which was granted.
Mr. Tschelebinski was received at Manchester prison the same day, where he was examined on reception by a medical officer, who noted his medical history and called for his previous medical records from Prestwich arid Stepping Hill hospitals. In view of Mr. Tschelebinski's epileptic condition and his previous attempt at suicide, the medical officer arranged for him to be admitted to the


prison hospital and prescribed medication. At first, Mr. Tschelebinski was very disturbed in his behaviour and also refused food and would not take his anti-epileptic medication regularly. Probably as a result of this refusal he had several epileptic fits on 4 and 5 January, and was given injections to control him.
By 6 January Mr. Tschelebinski had begun to show some signs of improvement. The medical officer had arranged for him to be seen by a consultant psychiatrist from Prestwich, who saw him on 6 January. Meanwhile, with constant nursing care, Mr. Tschelebinski's condition began to improve, and he started to take his medication regularly. He was taking fluids and eating a small amount of his meals. By 7 January he was considered to be much improved, more approachable, speaking to staff and taking a full diet and regular medication. When Mr. Tschelebinski's cell was unlocked at 7.45 on the morning of 8 January staff noted that he had defecated on the floor of his room. When the other inmates had been attended to, the hospital staff returned to give Mr. Tschelebinski his medication and breakfast. At this point he was cooperative, spoke to staff, and took both his medication and breakfast.
At about 8.55 am Mr. Tschelebinski's cell was unlocked again so that he could be given a bath and his room cleaned. The staff found him on the floor apparently dead. The officer who found him immediately cleared his mouth of food and instituted artificial respiration and external cardiac massage, which was continued with the help of other officers, and the medical officer was called.
Those resuscitation attempts were unsuccessful and the medical officer pronounced Mr. Tschelebinski dead at about 9.25 am. The inquest into the death was held at Manchester on 28 April 1983. I need not go into the medical evidence, because there is no dispute about it. The jury returned a finding of death by misadventure. In accepting the finding the coroner added that no blame could be placed on the prison staff.
I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Gentleman. It is perhaps logical that I should deal chronologically with the criticisms that he makes of the role of the police. He argued that the police were at fault in failing immediately to notify Mr. Tschelebinski's parents of the fact that he was in custody, despite having told the nursing staff that they would do so.
I understand that the Police Complaints Board was satisfied from the investigation report that in not informing Mr. Tschelebinski's parents the officer was complying with Mr. Tschelebinski's own wishes that they should not be notified. The offer to notify his parents was made by another police officer when he was taken to the police station, and was refused. He changed his mind about their being informed on the morning of 31 December, shortly before his court appearance, and they were then immediately contacted.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the police were nevertheless under an obligation, despite that expression of his wishes that his parents should not be informed, to notify them, and in correspondence the hon. Gentleman has referred to the judges' rules. The relevant passage is concerned with cases of doubt as to whether the person can understand the questions put, or where he appears likely to be especially open to suggestion.
The Police Complaints Board investigation found that though it was plain that Mr. Tschelebinski had had previous psychiatric problems, at the time of his arrest he was considered by his consultant to be fully aware of his actions and fit to be charged and detained. In those circumstances, the board agreed that there was no obligation on the police to inform Mr. Tschelebinski's parents, against his wishes. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the criticism made in the course of the investigation and endorsed by the Police Complaints Board was that, having come to that conclusion, which the board thought was justified, the arresting officers failed to inform the hospital that they were not, as they had undertaken to do, contacting the Tschelebinskis.
The board was satisfied from the investigating officer's report that the arresting officer was made fully aware of Mr. Tschelebinski's status as an informal patient at Stepping Hill hospital, receiving treatment for epilepsy, and of his previous mental history.
The police informed the prosecuting solicitor of Mr. Tschelebinski's earlier treatment for mental illness, and that information was given to the magistrates. I understand that it was that information that led the clerk of the court to recommend Mr. Tschelebinski's remand to a "place of safety", which was to be the hospital wing of Strangeways prison.
The clerk showed the reasons for his remand in custody to be the
seriousness of the offence, defendant's mental condition
and confirmed that Strangeways prison was the authorised establishment to receive prisoners on remand.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the conduct of the investigation, and he has implicitly criticised the board's report. He is aware, because he is experienced in these matters, that Ministers have been given no power by Parliament to intervene in any way in the investigation of complaints against the police or in the consideration by the Police Complaints Board of investigation reports. The Police Complaints Board is not under the control of Government. It has been deliberately set up by Parliament otherwise.
As the hon. Gentleman also knows, the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which received its Third Reading last week, changes that procedure so that the new Police Complaints Authority can itself supervise the investigation of complaints as defined by the Bill. I hope he will agree that that will be a change for the better in the procedures that we are discussing.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the magistrates' court was in error in not sending Mr. Tschelebinski to a psychiatric hospital instead of to a prison. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on the decisions of the court. As he also knows, because it has emerged in correspondence which he originated, in our judgment a magistrates' court has no power to order a remand to hospital in circumstances such as those of Mr. Tschelebinski's case.
The hon. Gentleman asked why Mr. Tschelebinski was put in a bare cell without clothes. When the medical officer examined him on reception he noted that he was generally disturbed, that he had made an attempt at suicide before and that he was an epileptic. To minimise the danger of self-injury, Mr. Tschelebinski was put in a room from which the furniture had been removed, but which contained a number of mattresses. His clothes were also removed to prevent any suicide attempt. I am told that the


room was adequately heated and that he was given a blanket. As I think my chronology of events shows, he was under regular supervision by hospital staff.
Unfortunately, despite those precautions, Mr. Tschelebinski sustained some injuries. On 5 January he was found to have a laceration to the back of his scalp, and on 6 January bruising on his knees and elbows was noted. He was given medical treatment, his condition gradually improved and the risk of self-injury decreased
As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Tschelebinski's mother telephoned several times to ask about her son's health and was advised that he was not in a fit state to be visited. As in any case of a relative wishing to visit a prisoner who is in a disturbed state, that advice was given after medical staff had considered the possible effects of a visit in those circumstances on both the patient and the visitor.
That is the sequence of events in this tragic case. Obviously, we have looked carefully at all the information that has come to us from the various sources that I have described. As the hon. Gentleman has taken up a number of other cases—I do not say similar cases, because I recall none in my experience with quite the same elements

of tragedy — he will be aware that hindsight is a powerful force in discussions of this kind. In fairness to all concerned, we have to consider whether those involved took reasonable decisions in the light of the circumstances at the time and the knowledge that they had or could reasonably have been expected to have at that time.
Against that test, we have considered very carefully the information available to us and the results of the different inquiries that have already been made—the inquest and the Police Complaints Board investigation. As I have said, we have no powers to intervene in or comment on the Police Complaints Board report. With regard to the prison, where jurisdiction is different, we see no reason to differ from the conclusion of the coroner, who made it clear that in his view no blame attached to prison staff for Mr. Tschelebinski's unexpected and sudden death.
Therefore, while recognising fully, and indeed sharing, the sense of tragedy that came through in the hon. Gentleman's speech, I do not think that he established the case for a public inquiry.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.